Q – I watch Animal Planet all the time and there was a story about chimps that gave me a thought about evolution. My roommate had just recently gone over it in class and remarked how easy it is to see how evolution could be true. I have to agree somewhat that the evolutionary chart could easily lead someone to think that’s how everything got started. But since I completely believe that God made everything and even proves it in the Bible (not only by someone writing it but talking with Job), I don’t think it’s possible.
Jim – Admittedly, Im no expert on this subject. But, I’ve certainly done my fair share of reading and debating, given my position as an expositor of Scripture. Here’s what I’ve come to:
Evolution is a theory, and an unfounded, unproven theory at that. There have been plenty of good books written that disprove evolution in minute detail, from several scientific positions: biology, zoology, archeology, etc. But, the essence of every argument against it boils down to a few indisputable facts. Darwin said at the end of his life that his theory would be proved or disproved by the fossil record. To date, the fossil record has not uncovered one shred of indisputable evidence to validate his theory.
Here’s the problem: The simplified version of evolution theory says that there is a direct link between apes and men, evidenced by the multiple similarities between the species. Over time, possibly millions of years, apes evolved into manlike creatures, which continued to evolve upward into modern Homosapiens. So, evolutionists are seeking “the missing link,” one of these ape/men who lived during this transition period from one species to another. And, of course, we would have to assume that there was more than one “evolved ape.” If only one ape evolved upward toward manhood, when he died the evolutionary process would have ended. So, there must have been thousands of apes gradually progressing upward toward their new state. Yet, the fossil record has never produced even one “missing link.” You don’t find any evidence of a single ape evolving into a man.
But, the simplified version of Darwin’s theory misses the larger point. The evolution of species posits the idea that all creatures evolved from a single-celled organism living in the primordial ooze somewhere. One cell sprang to life – rather inexplicably – and it divided, divided, and divided. Then, over thousands of years, as it grew into a more complex cellular being, it began developing more complex features – like gills, lungs, legs, etc. Other offshoots of that first cell became sea creatures, until one of those sea creatures climbed up on the earth and began developing the necessary elements to survive out of water. They became horses, elephants, polar bears, anteaters, etc. So, logic would tell us that the fossil record should expose more than just an ape/man hybrid. We should be finding all sorts of cross-species creatures. There should be horse/cows, and elk/goats, and elephant/rhinos, and cat/dogs. But, again, the evolutionists are at a loss to show even one proof of any creature evolving into a totally different species.
Now, it’s true and factual that we observe evolution within a species. New breeds of cats, dogs, mice, horses, etc. are very common. But, they don’t become new species; they become new breeds within the species. In other words, a dog is still a dog, even if we cross a poodle with a cocker spaniel.
Humans have also evolved within the species. The reason people have appendicitis attacks is that we don’t use our appendix any more. It secretes a fluid used to break down bone in our digestive system. We don’t eat many bones, anymore, now that our food processing skills have improved. So, the appendix becomes dormant, grows smaller, and is sometimes a problem for us. The same thing is true with our small toes. And, as I well know, hair. We don’t need hair to keep warm because we control our living environment, so we’re gradually becoming less hairy. Still, all of that happens within the species.
People have observed this evolution within a species and used it as the basis for their theories about species evolving from other species, but they are without substantive proof.
So, recently the evolutionists have begun altering their theory. Since they are without a single one of the potentially millions of “missing links” they suppose must exist, they have begun promulgating the theory of cataclysmic change. In other words, species evolved suddenly. New species sprang up instantaneously. Of course, there are numerous problems with this thinking. Firstly, there is not a single recorded instance of this happening in nature. Not to oversimplify, but two cats have never given birth to a dog. And, for this notion of cataclysmic change to be true, it would have had to happen identically in many different instances. In other words, if two armadillos suddenly gave birth to an elephant, the entire new species of elephant would have died when that one elephant died. But, other elephants must have also appeared around the same time, in order for them to continue mating and continue the species. If the elephant had attempted to mate with an armadillo (there’s an image for you), it would not have produced another elephant; it would have produced some odd hybrid. That’s what nature and science have clearly taught us.
And, the Bible declares that every creature brings forth offspring according to their own kind –
“And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind; and God saw that it was good.” (Gen. 1: 20-21)
But, more importantly, seldom do you find an example of a mutation of species that created a higher, better form of animal. Just the opposite is true. Typically, when something goes wrong within a species and a mutation of the species is produced, it is most often a weaker, lesser animal. It is a variant, a mutant, an aberration. In fact, usually its parents abandon it, because nature knows that such things are most likely not fit to live. A perfect example is the mule. It is a crossbreed between horses and donkeys. They are born sterile and cannot reproduce.
So, in order for their theory to be true, evolutionists would have to prove that thousands of instantaneous mutations happened, and that they produced a higher form of life and that the identical mutations happened in several instances for the continuation of the new species. Again, they are utterly without such proof.
Lastly, for the moment, evolutionists are flummoxed by one simple paradox – the eye. Yes, the eye. A basic theory of Darwinism is “survival of the fit.” In other words, weak animals die off and are eaten by other animals so that only the healthy animals live to reproduce. That creates strength and genetic vitality within a species. That’s all well and good. So, the primary instinct that drives all animals is survival. And, evolution theory insists that the upward drive of multiple positive mutations was spurred on by the need to survive. In other words, we evolved from the basic cellular level, one mutation at a time, driven by the need to eat and procreate. Anything that does not aid that primary purpose of survival naturally falls away and does not develop – like our appendix.
Now, follow me. Early animals would have had no sense of sight, given their lack of eyes. Having no sight, they would not have known what sight was. They could not have conceived of something they had never experienced. It would have taken millions of years for something as complex as the eye to evolve through multiple upward mutations. But, why would it? We know that you do not get partial sight from a partial eye. You only get partial sight from a fully developed, under-operating eye. In other words, there’s no reason for early creatures to have evolved an organ that would allow them to see when they had no idea what seeing was. Why would they? How would they know that sight would help them? And, even as it evolved, the earliest eyes would have been useless, so why did they continue developing? They would have fallen away in favor of more useful evolutionary growth. The development of the eye remains a puzzle for evolutionists. And, by the way, the eye remains one of the great proofs of creation. Only a God who understood what sight was would have gifted his creatures with the ability to see. Got it?
Anyway, considering the great wealth of evidence that should be available if their theory is true, it’s astounding that they have not uncovered one solid shred of proof. Still, in a world where God is denied, evolution seems attractive because it seemingly answers the question of how we got here. But, evolutionists really prefer that we not look too closely at their evidence. In fact, it requires more faith to believe a theory without evidence than it does to believe in Christianity, which has a veritable storehouse of factual, historic, objective and subjective proof.
Q – Do you think this idea could be a way of sorting out who truly believes in God? I know God’s in control of everything that happens to us on this planet and can certainly do anything he wants just like the great flood and natural disasters. What do you think?
Jim – I don’t know if it’s a way to sort out believers. Unbelievers through the ages have argued about God’s existence and tried to prove Him away. The point of philosophy is to start with the notion that God does not exist and then explain the meaning and purpose of life. Christianity says that we exist for God’s glory and the purpose of our lives is to worship and enjoy Him.
As for God’s control, you’re right. He’s left some people blinded. They are not stupid as far as worldly knowledge goes, but they are ignorant to God’s revelation of Himself. So, they go about attempting to establish theories that explain their lives and give them meaning in the absence of Divine Presence.
Good luck to ’em.
Q – My other question came from watching Animal Rescues and I’ve always wondered how animals know if humans are in trouble or will be – dogs saving people in water or foreseeing epileptic seizures. Do you think God communicates thru animals just like he can people?
Jim – There’s only one instance in the Bible of God communicating through an animals, when He made Balaam’s donkey talk to him and keep him from the angel of judgment standing in front of them. But, I don’t think God uses animals to communicate with us. He sent His Son to do that, and His Son left behind a book full of His words. So, I think that’s pretty much sufficient.
As for animals saving people, I think it’s instinct. Granted, instinct is hardwired into animals by God, but it’s still a basic element of how animals function. It’s like horses predicting earthquakes. They have an innate sense of the earth that we don’t share. But, that’s not mystical. Dogs are very protective. We used to have a dog named Sam who would put herself between my young children and any stranger that passed our house. She was instinctively protective of our family. So, if they were in any danger, she would naturally protect them. I think that’s why we hear of dogs, and even pigs (!) alerting their beloved humans of impending tragedy.
But, when God takes to communicating, He’s normally quite clear and exacting in His message. Balaam’s donkey was quite clear in his retort to his owner (Numbers 22:21-34). God does not need animals pulling loved ones from fires to communicate His message.
All of this talk about Creationism versus Evolution reminds me of a story I’ve heard several times. I don’t know the origination of the story, but it makes a good point.
A man had a Swiss watch. It was a marvelous piece of craftsmanship. A friend came by and commented on the exquisite movement and delicate balance of the timepiece. Finally, he asked, “Who made this watch?”
The owner answered, “No one.”
The man laughed and argued, “Of course someone made it. Look at it! It’s marvelous! It’s beautiful! It’s wonderfully arranged and runs perfectly. Now, who made it?”
Again the owner said, “No one. It just sort of evolved. It appeared. Several bits of metal suddenly leapt into position and this watch was here.”
“Do you take me for a fool?! I know that watches like these don’t just appear. They require a craftsman, a highly skilled watchmaker! Now, I demand to know who made it!”
The owner answered, “You don’t believe in God, my friend. You want me to accept that the whole universe, perfect in its structure, and the planets revolving around the sun – the whole basis for time, on which this watch is based – suddenly sprang into being without a maker or creator. You cannot accept that something as small and insignificant as a watch can appear, but you believe that the whole universe did. If the obvious structure and workmanship of a watch demands a maker, then so must the universe.”
I like that.
Yours in Him,