Is It True?

By Kevin Craft

A Review of Evolution

            Ultimately, the debate between creation and evolution comes down to which one is absolute truth. Truth is not governed by age or by opinion, but rather is something that transcends time and culture without contradiction and without being disproved. Truth is “conformable to fact; being in accordance with the actual state of things” (Webster). Truth is in essence reality (what really is). What are some of the claims of evolution, and does it line up with what is really true?

Before looking at the validity of these claims, it is important to take a little time to define what the terms evolution and creation mean. The type of evolution that will be addressed is the type that says evolution is a “change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift” (“Evolution”). This definition implies that this change of the gene pool can result in completely new species. The type of creation that will be addressed is the one defined in the Bible, namely that God created everything in six days (Gen. 2:2); He created each of the different kinds of animals individually (Gen. 1:21,24); He created humans in His own image (Gen. 1:26-27); and all this was done without evolution between kinds.

Now consider the evidence regarding evolution. Evolution uses part of the truth in regards to natural selection, but it extends that truth to say that genetic information is added to the gene pool, thereby causing new species. This is where evolutionists overstep scientific boundaries of observation. There simply is no verifiable scientific evidence for this.

There are three flaws with evolution that need to be considered. First is the dating system. The dating system in use, the U-Th-Pb dating system, is invalid because scientists are basing the tests off of variable conditions (Snelling). Since the dates are in doubt, it is unreasonable to assume that a certain creature existed before the current kinds of creatures and then evolved into the current kinds. The second flaw is this: in earth’s documented history there is no evidence or observation of evolution between kinds (Morris). The third flaw is the idea of mutation. Evolution considers mutations necessary for evolution between kinds to occur. But as is seen from simple observation, when animals above the molecular level are born mutated they are never as healthy as or more developed than the regular species. The idea that random mutation creates biological diversity fails computer simulations, and it fails biologically. This observation was confirmed by Theodosius Dobzhansky's fruit fly radiation experiments, Goldschmidt's gypsy moth experiments, and others. Decades of research were conducted in the early 20th century, bombarding fruit flies and moths with radiation in hope of mutating their DNA and producing improved creatures.  These experiments were a total failure – there were no observed improvements – only weak, sickly, deformed fruit flies (Marshall). So then mutations, a necessity for the evolution to be true, would be considered reverse evolution, and would in fact contradict evolution because it produces inferior, not superior, creatures.

Darwin said, “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” (Darwin, qtd. by Tackett). In other words, if something, or anything, did not come about through these successive modifications, then evolution is not true. Darwin’s theory has been disproved in this way by looking at the individual cell, a very complex organism. The cell is irreducibly complex, in that it cannot function if it is missing any of the parts that it possesses. This in itself, by Darwin’s own criteria, has broken down evolution. It simply doesn’t hold up to the scientific evidence.

Now consider another branch of science, the social sciences of sociology, psychology, and philosophy. Evolution implies that there is no God, or if there is a God, He definitely does not affect human life. So then evolution does not acknowledge the truth of the God of the Bible. Because evolution does not believe the truth of the Bible, it has to come up with answers to the questions of life without including God in the equation. Starting with this worldview that denies God and says that the universe is all that exists leads to major problems when trying to answer the questions of life. Instead of looking to God (the supreme source of knowledge, Col. 2:3) for the answers of life, we have to come up with the answers on our own through our own thoughts and observations of the universe. This leads to the post-modern kind of thinking that is prevalent today, which says there is no truth. If there is no ultimate authority on the issues of life, then there are no absolutes and there is no basis for right and wrong. Without God, there is no absolute foundation for ethics and there is no good or bad. Everything you do is completely natural because there is nothing unnatural. This means that there is no evil, and that everything about man is naturally good (Rogers, Maslow, cited by Tackett). But that’s not the reality that we see in the world around us. You see, evolution and its thought processes simply do not match up with the realities that we see in life. The natural self tells us that there is good and bad. Everyone knows there is evil, and that man is not naturally good. Simply watching the news will make that evident. In all reality, an evolutionary worldview has no right to even talk about evil and complain about evil. What is considered evil by everyone is just a natural process of survival of the fittest in evolution (Tackett). So then, evolution is actually a promoter of evil and evil shouldn’t even bother us if evolution is true, because it’s just another natural process of life. But it is evident that evil does bother us, therefore it is shown by our natural inclinations that reality and evolution are contradictory. This is shown by the conscience that God has given, furthering the evidence that the Bible lines up with reality and is true. And if the Bible is true, then its accounts of creation must also be true.

It is impossible to find the overarching answers to life’s questions without God. If He did not create the world, and evolution is true, then there is no ultimate purpose in life because we are here simply due to random occurrences. A mindset that does not include the existence of God leads people to many fallacies like this. Again, it comes down to finding out what is true, evolution or creation. The account of evolution does not appear to hold up to the realities shown earlier, whereas the account of creation does. Each person must decide for himself which account he believes to be true, but the evidence seems to favor creation.

Works Cited

The Bible. Print.

Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: 1859. Print.

"Evolution." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. Web. 23 Oct. 2009.

Marshall, Perry. "If You Can Read This, I Can Prove God Exists." Cosmic Fingerprints. 03 Jun 2005. Web. 23 Oct 2009. <http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm>

Morris, John. "What's a Missing Link?." Institute for Creation Research. 01 Apr 2006. Web. 23 Oct 2009.

Provine, William. "Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy?." Stanford University. 30 Apr 1994. Address. <http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or161/161main.htm>

Snelling, Andrew. "Dubious Radiogenic Pb Places U-Th-Pb Mineral Dating in Doubt." Institute for Creation Research. Jan 2000. Web. 23 Oct 2009. <http://www.icr.org/articles/view/462/259/>.

Tackett, Del. The Truth Project. Focus on the Family: 2008, DVD.

Webster, Noah. American Dictionary of the English Language. Chesapeake: Foundation for American Christian Education, 2007. Print.