The more I learn about the “theory” of evolution, the more amazed I am that so many in our society have accepted this pseudoscience hook, line, and sinker.
Oh, please don’t misunderstand.
I am well aware that this theory of origins has been force-fed into the impressionable minds of children in the American school system for generations.
I am cognizant of the fact that the public media in the United States has a definite bias and agenda towards promoting the “goo-to-you” theory.
Too, I am fully aware that many-even in the Lord’s church-have sacrificed Scriptural truth to appease the pro-Darwinists of our day and age.
Yet what truly amazes me is how this theory is still so strongly endorsed by so many, in light of the numerous irrefutable problems and gaping contradictions that exist within the system, and especially when such are being continually expounded upon by well-educated scientists and researchers!
Let me give you an example.
One physician has written an excellent study on the numerous problems of Darwinism theory. In the conclusion of his fascinating book, What Darwin Didn’t Know: A Doctor Dissects The Theory Of Evolution, Dr. Geoffrey Simmons writes:
“The ship of evidence that carries Darwin’s theories is full of gaping holes, and yet a huge following will not allow it to sink. Their belief is as strong as that of those who oppose evolution, who are often mocked as “religious”—yet, like a religion, the “science” of evolution is actually based on a belief system.” (Geoffrey Simmons M.D., What Darwin Didn’t Know: A Doctor Dissects The Theory Of Evolution, 301 (Kindle Edition); Eugene, Oregon; Harvest House Publishers)
In fact, Dr. Simmons explains that if Darwin were alive today, his writings would probably not even be published:
“The theory of evolution is like a connect-the-dots game. Some dots are clearly connected, such as wolves to dogs, but the vast majority, such as reptiles to mammals, cannot be connected without millions of intermediary dots (species). Darwin’s theories do not come close to explaining the enormous complexity even within a simple cell (let alone the entire body), the whole-package phenomenon (WPP), and irreducible complexity. The fact that a series of useless steps is needed to accomplish a tiny task forcefully argues against evolution. The fact that all bodily functions require the convergence of many useless steps and useless systems (when each is viewed in isolation) excludes evolution as an option. The presumed multiple mutations leading up to mankind would have had to be organized, purposeful, targeted, simultaneous, frequent, safe, and too numerous to count. The original blueprint would have had to contain all of the subsequent blueprints, such as how to make the next steps out of the many on the way to manufacturing insulin, hemoglobin, adrenalin, or growth hormone. It would also have had to include how to use these chemicals, how to control their concentrations (feedback loops), how to replace them, how to keep them from interacting with each other, how to concentrate them in areas or at times of need, how to use them within each cell, and how to dispose of them….Darwin knew little of genetics, hardly anything about human physiology, and nothing of conception. He could not tell the difference between a kidney cell and a liver cell, nor did he know they existed. His writings included inflammatory, sexist, and bigoted comments. He rarely gave credit to any scientific source. No such scientific article would be accepted for publication nowadays….Very few educators seem to have taken an unbiased, in-depth look at the data. By observing farmers breed animals to get a better version, Darwin deduced that man could eventually breed one species into another. Simply stated, by making horses smaller and smaller, one might eventually get a dog or a cat. If Darwin’s writings were scrutinized by today’s standards, he probably would not be published. No one has ever shown that one species can change into another. Yet Darwin wrote that bears, who prefer to keep their heads above water, could evolve into whales that can dive many fathoms beneath the water’s surface, sustain themselves permanently out at sea, withstand incredible hypothermia, migrate thousands of miles each year, and successfully give birth underwater. Not to mention such factors as growing blubber, shrinking four extremities, shedding all hair, growing fins, and developing a subsonic communication system.” (Geoffrey Simmons M.D., What Darwin Didn’t Know: A Doctor Dissects The Theory Of Evolution, 301-303 (Kindle Edition); Eugene, Oregon; Harvest House Publishers)
What About The Fossil Record?
The esteemed doctor goes on to summarize still more problems of Darwinism which arise from the Fossil Record.
While I disagree with the millions and billions of years dates that are here mentioned (based on Scriptural and scientific reasons), Mr. Simmons comments pose another serious problem for Darwinism:
“Flies found in amber that is estimated to be 225 million years old are the same as today’s flies. The giraffe, with its incredibly long neck, has not changed in two million years, and it has no shorter-neck predecessors among the fossils. Rodents also appeared suddenly in the fossil record. Fish arrived without preceding fish-like fossils. Insects showed up without any precedents. Thousands of new species, discovered at the Burgess Shale in Canada and at a counterpart in China, exploded on the scene during the Cambrian period (sometimes called the biological big bang) 540 million years ago. No predecessor fossils have ever been found for 99 percent of some quite large and weird-looking animals. The opabinia had five eyes; there were worms with thorny noses to snag prey; and we’ve even found evidence of crawling creatures with eyes on the ends of stalks. There are no new phyla since the Cambrian period. Most species, according to the fossil record, evolved very little, if at all, before becoming extinct; the life expectancy of a species of animal might have extended a hundred thousand generations or a few million years, yet each generation continued to look much like, if not identical to, the previous generations. Take the beetle. It has not changed in two million years. Or the bowfin fish, which has not changed in 100 million years. The lungfish has not changed in 350 million years. Herbert Nilsson of Lund University, Sweden, stated, “It is not even possible to make a caricature of evolution [Darwin’s gradualism] out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained by the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.” Or consider the words of paleontologist Steven Stanley: “The known fossil record is not, and never has been in accord with gradualism.” Or those of paleontologist David Raup: “Different species usually appear and disappear from the fossil record without showing the transitions that Darwin postulated.” Or those of biologist and curator of the American Museum of Natural History, Ernst Mayr: “With curious frequency it is even stated today that Darwin’s method was largely one of speculation and deduction.” Or those of Francis Hitching in The Neck of the Giraffe, who states that most scientists now discount the idea of the lungfish having evolved into an amphibian, based on its head structure and lack of true legs.” (Geoffrey Simmons M.D., What Darwin Didn’t Know: A Doctor Dissects The Theory Of Evolution, 303-305 (Kindle Edition); Eugene, Oregon; Harvest House Publishers)
Genetics: Friend Or Foe?
In describing how genetics cause even more of a huge catastrophe for the proponents of the theory of macroevolution, Simmons discusses the findings of modern day science:
“Stasis and extinction are the patterns seen in fossils. Freaks of nature are shunned, such as a zebra born without stripes. Animals will often kill different-looking or different-acting offspring even if they might grow up to be stronger or faster (but how would they know?). Once in every ten million cell divisions, a cell makes a copying mistake. The chance of the mistake passing into the next generation is one in two. The odds are six to one that it will disappear by the tenth generation and fifty to one that it will be gone by the hundredth generation.” (Geoffrey Simmons M.D., What Darwin Didn’t Know: A Doctor Dissects The Theory Of Evolution,305 (Kindle Edition); Eugene, Oregon; Harvest House Publishers)
Yet someone may ask, “Mark, that is pretty incredible: but if the Earth really is billions of years old, wouldn’t that be enough time for these favorable generic changes to take place?”
I’m glad you asked. Let’s allow Dr. Simmons to answer:
“According to F.B. Livingston, it would take approximately 20,000 generations, or 400,000 years, for an advantageous gene to spread among the hominid populations of the Pleistocene Era. If we are descendants of the famous Lucy, the australopithecine skull found in Ethiopia in 1974 and thought to be three million years old, then there would have been time for only seven advantageous genes to have changed. That’s barely enough of a change to tell a difference, let alone make a monkey into a person. Some scientists think that one beneficial mutation happens per 20,000 mutations. Or reverse this: 19,999 out of 20,000 mutations are useless, dangerous, or quickly diluted out. To calculate the statistical chance of man’s DNA codes having so come about—correctly and by mere chance—multiply 6,000,000,000 by a number just short of infinity. Nesse and Williams estimate the likelihood of any gene being altered as one in a million per generation—and most often these changes are either lethal or lead to freaks…. According to Richard Milton, who wrote Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, the chances of forming protein and self-replicating DNA randomly are as likely as “winning the state lottery by finding the winning ticket in the street, and then continuing to win the lottery every week for a thousand years by finding the winning ticket in the street each time” (in other terms, one chance in 1065). (Geoffrey Simmons M.D., What Darwin Didn’t Know: A Doctor Dissects The Theory Of Evolution, 305-307 (Kindle Edition); Eugene, Oregon; Harvest House Publishers)
The Bottom Line
After highlighting several other problems with the theory of evolution, Dr. Simmons concludes:
“I am not a theologian, nor do I pretend to be. I’m merely a collector and analyzer of biological and medical facts. The data, as I see it, points directly to an Intelligent Designer, much like a car speaks for an automaker, a soufflé for a chef, and a play for a play-wright.” (Geoffrey Simmons M.D., What Darwin Didn’t Know: A Doctor Dissects The Theory Of Evolution, 309 (Kindle Edition); Eugene, Oregon; Harvest House Publishers).
So Then Why Do So Many Accept Science Fiction Over Science?
Perhaps you are wondering, “If the evidence is so strongly against the theory of evolution, then why do so many still believe in and advocate it?”
I believe the words of Richard Lewontin provide the answer for that question. In acknowledging some of the many nearly innumerable issues with Darwinism “science,” we are told why so many evolutionists still adhere to the theory:
““Our willingness to accept scientific claims against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, FOR WE CANNOT ALLOW A DIVINE FOOT IN THE DOOR.” (Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, p. 31, January 9, 1997-emphasis added, M.A.T.)
Are you saying that the reason why evolutionists continue to hold to this ridiculous theory is because of a bias against God?
And, there are other evolutionary scientists who have been as forthcoming about this as Lewiston:
“Writing in Nature as long ago as 1929, biologist D. M. S. Watson brazenly conceded, ‘The theory of evolution itself [is] a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative is special creation, which is clearly incredible’113 (emphasis added). The palaeontologist L. T. More, of the University of Chicago, has said much the same thing: ‘Our faith in the idea of evolution depends upon our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation.’114 So has the eminent British anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith: ‘Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable’115 (emphasis added).” (John Blanchard, Does God Believe In Atheists? 2383-2394 (Kindle Edition); Carlisle, PA; EP Books USA)
So, let’s make sure we understand this.
Evolutionists know the problems of the theory of evolution.
Evolutionists know the impossibilities of the theory of evolution.
Evolutionists know the absurdities of the theory of evolution.
Yet evolutionists continue to hold to this theory for one simple reason….because they DO NOT want to grant the possibility that GOD EXISTS.
Now, here is a question that I have.
Considering all of these facts, WHY is the theory of evolution allowed to be taught in public schools as TRUTH to children?
This last question should give us all opportunity to pause and consider.
Friends, the verdict is clear: there is a God. His Word (in nature and in Scripture) have been authenticated through in numerous infallible proofs. Why not turn to Him today for salvation? Through the death, burial, and resurrection of God’s Son, Jesus Christ, forgiveness for sins had been provided and intimate relationship with God is available (John 10:15-18; 17:).
God has declared that believers in Jesus (John 8:24) who repent of their sins (Luke 13:3) and are baptized into Him (Romans 6:3-4) Upon a profession of faith in Jesus as the Son of God (Acts 8:37; Romans 10:9-10) will be saved (Acts 2:38; 22:16) and added by God Himself to the church of Christ (Acts 2:47; Ephesians 1:3).
God also offers forgiveness to Christians who have turned away from Him. In repentance and prayer (Acts 8:22; 1 John 1:9), the erring child of God is restored to the Lord (Galatians 6:1; 1 John 2:1-2).
Why not obey Him today?
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.