July 30, 2024
In this brief article, I will describe what I believe to be the foundational problems with the evolution dogma. I’m having trouble overcoming these issues. If I could get past these issues, I would still reject evolution for many other reasons, which I am not going to address in this short article.
There are three monumental questions: 1) Is the Bible the Word of God? Can it be trusted? Is it the final authority? 2) Which translation of the Bible is the Word of God and is better than all the rest? 3) Is the Genesis account of creation accurate, or is the dogma of macroevolution true? These three subjects have occupied a significant portion of my time over the years. The focus of this article is evolution, which denies the Biblical account of creation.
“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,” Romans 1:21-22
Evolution is the outcome of not acknowledging God and not being thankful. Therefore, mankind “became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” It is incredible how the godless scientists, in particular, “professing themselves to be wise,” like to lecture creationists about how foolish we are to believe in God and that He created this universe.
Scripture tells us that macroevolution is born in the imagination of man and not in hard science. Godless scientists, “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” More actual words were never spoken. It is truly amazing the lengths “scientists” and others will go to deny God and His work of creation. God looks on them as fools. Not only that, God gives them over to all manner of depravity.
Why is this subject of evolution so vital?
No other idea has ruined the faith of so many people in the last 150 years. If evolution is true, then the credibility and authority of the Bible and the Christian faith are questionable at best and manifestly superstitious at worst. Most people today talk about macroevolution in terms that make it abundantly clear that they consider evolution a settled fact of science, not to be questioned. (These same ‘experts’ place man-made climate change on the same unassailable level). What’s that saying about telling a big lie rather than a small lie? Will people believe a big lie sooner than a small lie? And is it true that if a big lie is repeated long enough, often enough, and loud enough, that people will believe it? History demonstrates that all this is true.
At one time, leading intellectuals and scientists told us that blacks were not fully human. That lie was believed for a long time. The same lie was said about the Jewish people, and look at what happened. Fast forward to today, and we are told that a pre-born fetus is not fully human, and the slaughter of babies continues. Ideas have consequences, and evil ideas have horrendous consequences. History bears witness to this truth.
Macroevolution is one of those big lies that has been told loudly, often, and for a long time, so most people think of it as a fact and absolute truth. It most certainly is not the absolute truth. There is a reason why I will not dignify evolution by calling it a theory. It is a myth invented by foolish people. It is one of the biggest lies ever told. Evolution is nothing but a pagan religion and a full-fledged alternative to Christianity.
The word “theory,” when used by supporters of evolution, means much more than we typically think. Getting creationists to concede that there is a theory of evolution means, to some evolutionists I have listened to, that it is as credible as the theory or fact of gravity and light. Just because gravity and light can’t be explained scientifically in complete detail doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. (What exactly is gravity? Is it a force or a curvature in space-time? We know what it does, but not so much about what it consists of at a microscopic level and why. How did gravity evolve? Is light a particle, a wave, or both? How does light move through space as wave energy, but when it strikes an object, it acts like a particle of energy? How could light possibly evolve slowly over time?
Just because evolution can’t be fully explained or justified scientifically doesn’t mean it is not true. In their minds, the theory of macroevolution is just as solid as the theory of gravity and light. Therefore, I try to avoid calling evolution a theory because I do not believe it is anything but a myth of a pagan religion. I realize that most people will call me a lunatic or just plain stupid. The many years of evolution, brainwashing have worked very well in our culture and some of our churches.
Likewise, most of what we are told about climate change being an existential threat to humanity is nothing more than a scare tactic to frighten us into handing over power to the progressive elite. Both man-made climate change and evolution are popular myths, and lies told to us by the ‘guessperts’. ‘Guessperts’ are those self-proclaimed experts, scientists, and intellectuals, many of whom are for hire. They are professional experts at guessing, speculating, forecasting, and imagining the unimaginable. There is ‘guesspert’ on every corner willing to provide their expert opinion for the right price. And macroevolution, as a ‘scientific myth,’ is more dangerous because so many of us think that science speaks ex cathedra. We conveniently forget all the times that science and scientists get it wrong and how long it takes for science and scientists to correct their errors and fraud. Shall we discuss the misinformation surrounding COVID-19 vaccines and masks?
Evolution attempts to address the origin of time, space, matter, life, the universe, the stars, elements, and the changes between species or kinds – macroevolution. The creationist and the evolutionist both agree on microevolution or limited changes within families or kinds. That is not disputed. And microevolutionary changes are all the evidence evolutionists ever point to in support of macroevolution. All other aspects of supposed macroevolution are most definitely disputed. This article is about macroevolution.
Presuppositions regarding macroevolution
The myth of macroevolution begins by assuming a few things that should never be considered valid, because they are outside the realm of hard science. Hard science is about what can be demonstrated, tested, measured, and verified through repeated experiments. Soft science is about what people who practice science think about matters beyond what can be observed, tested, and repeated. At best, macroevolution is a relatively soft science, often referred to as historical science. It is built on a foundation of assumptions that can’t be measured, tested, observed, or repeated. These false and ruinous presuppositions taint their entire understanding of evolution. But these never stopped the ‘guesspert’ who traffics in imaginative guesses and speculations.
As already mentioned, the definition of the word is critical. What is the definition of evolution? There are several definitions of macroevolution, but only one (changes within kinds) can be directly observed. That is the idea of microevolution, which even creationists agree with. Changes within kinds are observed constantly. Every mom and dad, with more than one child, knows that their children will be very different, despite their similarities. But all of them are human beings, not a bird, a snake, a monkey, a dog, or a new type of human being or some other classification of life.
From a hard-science position on microevolution, the macroevolutionist then constructs a superstructure of supporting assumptions to explain the origins of life and the universe. They must make speculative pronouncements about the origin of the universe, stars, chemicals, life, and so on. None of these can be observed, repeated, tested, or measured. Let us consider a couple of the most essential presuppositions (things assumed to be true).
Uniformitarianism
James Hutton, an 18th-century Scottish geologist and farmer, developed the “theory” of uniformitarianism, which holds that the geological forces that shape the earth’s surface today are the same as those that have operated continuously throughout history. He thought that phenomena such as erosion, deposition, compaction, and uplift have been constant throughout all time. They occur very gradually over long periods (millions of years, not thousands), and are hardly noticeable to humans. The present is the key to the past. In the 1700s, geology was not a settled field of science. Hutton was a farmer who had an interest in geology. He is actually credited with the beginning of classical geology. He lived from 1726 to 1797.
Hutton’s idea was not a direct assault on the Bible, but it was an indirect assault nonetheless. There is no way he could have known that the present is the key to the past. It is not a law of nature, like the law of gravity. He simply assumed that the present is the key to the past, based on his desire to dethrone God and the Bible. The present is not the key to the past, and there are often sudden, dramatic changes to Earth. Hutton believed that changes to the geology of Earth, “occur very gradually over long periods of time (over millions of years, not thousands of years), hardly noticeable by man”.
It is impossible to know the truth of his statement. It must be assumed to be true. I can’t believe it is true. Throughout my lifetime, I have come to realize that this is not true. I was living in Northern California in the mid-1970s. Mt. St. Helens erupted in 1980 in southwest Washington state. That volcanic eruption was not “hardly noticeable by man,” even though it was a small volcano. Two years after the volcano erupted, another significant event (a mud flow from Spirit Lake) created a canyon, much like the Grand Canyon, but much smaller. The miniature Grand Canyon was not made slowly over millions of years. It was made overnight, in one evening. It was a lot of water and a very short time period at Mt. St. Helens. (And that is a better explanation for the Grand Canyon, which is assumed to have formed over a small amount of water over millions of years.)
Now, pretend for a moment that Mt. Saint Helens was unknown to us until it was discovered in 2150. It is not at all hard to imagine that godless scientists would consider this canyon at Mt. Saint Helens to be formed exactly as the Grand Canyon was, by the Colorado River over millions of years. The small river at the bottom of this canyon, below Mt. St. Helens, the Toutle River, created this large canyon over millions of years, just like how the Grand Canyon was created millions of years ago. If the present is the key to the past, then 2150 scientists would likely claim that the Toutle River made this canyon over millions of years. The present is not the key to the past.
The present is the key to the present and nothing else. Similarly, when investing in a particular fund, we are rightfully reminded that “Past performance doesn’t guarantee future results.” In other words, this fund may have produced excellent results over the last 10 years, but that does not guarantee those results will continue. The present may indeed tell us something about the immediate past, but it tells us nothing about the distant past. For example, we may know that today carbon 14 has a half-life of about 5730 years, but we do not know that has always been the case. We can only assume that any material we find in the dirt or rocks today, which we date using C14, has not been corrupted by minerals entering or leaving the object.
Carbon 14 should not be found in diamonds, which are supposedly millions of years old and the hardest naturally forming substance we know of. Yet C14 has been found in diamonds. After approximately 100,000 years, there should be no measurable carbon-14 left in diamonds supposedly millions or billions of years old. So how do evolutionists explain that? Evolutionists argue that the presence of carbon-14 in diamonds today is due to some carbon-14 leaching into the diamond, which is the hardest substance known. To refute creationists, they simply change the assumption. Evolutionists tell us that the sample must have been contaminated—exactly my point. We will never know the purity or content of the original sample unless we were present when it was formed and measured. We can make an infinite number of assumptions to prove any point we want.
If a fossil is found in the dirt, we know that the organism it came from died. When it passed is another matter. Evolutionary science claims to answer that question by stating that fossils are dated based on the rock layers. How, then, do we determine the date of the rock layers? The index fossils date the rock layers, we are told. This is a tautology and exemplifies circular reasoning. We determine the date of the fossil by examining the rock layers, and we determine the date of the rock layers by examining the fossil. Brilliant. But don’t radiometric dating techniques tell us the precise date of the rocks? No, they don’t.
Radiometric dating methods don’t work when we do know the date of the rock! These methods are assumed to work when the rock’s actual date is unknown. For example, rocks from Mt. St. Helens (1980) were dated using some of these radiometric dating methods, ranging from 300,000 to over 2 million years old when tested after the eruption. The dating methods did not work. (Some of the dating methods are: Radiocarbon (14C), Rubidium-Strontium (RB-SR), Potassium-Argon (K-Ar), and Samarium-Neodymium (Sm-Nd).
Catastrophism
The French scientist, Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), popularized the theory of catastrophism. (Why this is called a theory is a mystery to me.) Catastrophism is the idea that the Earth’s history has been shaped by sudden, violent, and short-lived events that may have been global in scale. (He is also credited with establishing extinction as a fact of science). He believed in the Biblical account of creation. We know, based on personal observation, that violent storms can alter significant sections of land. The present is not the key to the past. We observe that volcanoes can change the topography of large areas of land. The present is not the key to the past. Observe Mt. St. Helens now compared to 1970. We also know that flooding can cause tremendous destruction. The present is not the key to the past. Unpredictable catastrophes happen all too often.
Creationists believe that the Noahic global flood altered the entire surface of the Earth and explains what we find in present-day fossils. If there were a global flood lasting months, we would expect to find many fossils buried in rock layers. And what do we find? “We find billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth”. (Credit goes to Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis.)
Evolution needs billions of years to make it even seem plausible. All dating methods must make assumptions. You can assign any date you desire to fossils by adjusting the assumptions. Both creationists and evolutionists frequently do this; they change the assumptions.
God and the supernatural are not allowed.
In addition to this line of thinking and partly because of it, godless secular scientists began to demand that all science consider only the material universe. The supernatural (God) was deemed irrational and outside the realm of science. Yet many of the most outstanding scientists who have ever lived were Christians, and they never excluded God from their considerations. This new breed of secular scientists departed from historical science and decided that the supernatural could not be considered when thinking about macroevolutionary ideas such as the age of the earth and the universe, the origin of natural laws, the origin of life, and the fundamental properties of matter and energy, among others.
A godless science began to assert primacy over scientific research. The underlying foundation is the false and pompous idea that scientists possess sufficient knowledge to exclude a supreme being as the creator. Unless they are divine, they can’t know that with even a slight degree of certainty. All they can do is to speculate and bully the unsuspecting.
Do scientists know everything there is to know? Obviously not. How much of all knowledge do they know? Let’s say, generously, that scientists know 10% of everything that can be known. That means 90% is yet unknown to them. To pretend that the small amount they know excludes the supernatural in the 90% they do not know is arrogant and simply ridiculous. To demand explanations that eliminate God and the paranormal as part of the “scientific” investigation is an unacceptable prejudice, don’t you think? Isn’t science the pursuit of the truth?
At one time, science was the pursuit of the truth no matter where it led. Today, it is the pursuit of only materialistic explanations and wildly imaginative explanations about things we do not yet understand. Godless science today will not allow a divine foot in the door. Yet many real scientists reject that idea and believe the Bible’s explanation for the universe, man, and the age of the earth.
Dr. James Tour, a chemist and nanotechnologist, states that we are not any closer today, but actually further away from an explanation of the origin of life, than we ever have been. The idea that life simply sprang into existence from nowhere and nothing requires more blind faith than believing in the Genesis account of creation.
Others convincingly argue that in the beginning was information. Information is a nonmaterial fundamental entity that is neither matter nor energy. Where did that initial information come from? Information requires intelligence, which is also a nonmaterial entity. Where did the intelligence and information come from to produce and program our DNA? What about the laws of nature—where did the intelligence and information behind them come from? These things can readily be explained by resorting to divine intelligence. They cannot possibly be explained by material processes alone without simply believing in fanciful and superstitious assumptions like spontaneous generation.
“The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing-zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.” A quote from Alan Guth and his theory of inflation. Seriously, how is it that intelligent people can believe such a ridiculous idea, which is contrary to everything we witness around us? I thought the present was the key to the past? We see none of this in the present.
Can absolutely nothing at all burst into anything? Can absolutely ‘nothing’ explode into everything? These ideas are so ridiculous that it is a wonder that people swallow them. Ladies and gentlemen, the emperor is naked! “Nothing” can never burst into anything, let alone everything. Nothing can’t burst at all! Only something can explode or burst. Someone (an omniscient and omnipotent God) created everything out of nothing, which is entirely different than suggesting that nothing burst into everything all on its own.
The Bible gives a perfect and rational explanation for the origin of life. God created man and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Then man became a living being. Before this breath of life, man was a body with no life. Life required the breath of God, the supernatural, to energize it. God is spirit. Man is spirit, mind, and body because he is created in the image and likeness of God. It is impossible to explain the origin of life apart from a creator who is spirit and is life itself.
Why is this subject so important?
The issue of evolution is a watershed. Ever since Charles Darwin published his book on evolution in 1859, the godless have run to it as if it were the ark of Noah before the flood. This is the most critical subject imaginable. I can’t think of any more important because it affects so many other critical subjects. Early on in my Christian walk, I determined to know the truth at all costs. I have read many books on the topic and have considered it for decades. If Darwinism or neo-Darwinism is correct, then the Bible is wrong.
If the Bible is wrong about the creation of the universe, stars, and man, then its authority is undermined and it can’t be trusted. However, if the Bible is correct about all of these, then its authority is confirmed and it must be trusted. And if the Bible is wrong about creation, then is it also wrong about sin and hell? Is it wrong about the sin of homosexuality and other sexual sins?
I know that more scientists believe in macroevolution than those who believe in special creation. But the truth is never established based on how many believe something. The majority is wrong about many things. Think about how many bad politicians get elected each cycle! Evolution makes no sense at all. It is like the story about the princess who is told to kiss a frog to get her prince. We all know that it is a fairy tale. But we are told that, if given enough time, the frog does indeed turn into a prince! And we bravely call that science just because we get so many others to agree with us. Is pathetic too strong a word?
This is what they told us about President Joe Biden’s mental and physical deterioration. Don’t believe what you hear or see with your ears and eyes. Biden is in great shape and ready for four more years as our President. Look at how many have believed that lie (until the debate) and still do (after the debate). Think of all those who cling to the delusion of man-made climate change being an existential threat to mankind. I repeat myself, but consider how incapable science is at accurately forecasting the weather tomorrow or next week. When science can do that accurately, then maybe we should consider what science has to say about the global weather decades from now.
My last reminder: someone once said that people will sooner believe a big lie than a small one. And it is said that if you tell a big lie, loud enough, often enough, and long enough, people will believe it. Biden and his team have just about destroyed the economy of the USA based on the myth that man-made climate change is an existential threat to humanity.
Godless secularists and progressive-liberal Christians have just about destroyed belief in the Word of God by promoting evolution, which has ushered into our culture something more wicked than Sodom and Gomorrah.
Scientists are human beings with all the same flaws, shortcomings, and sins as the rest of humanity. Like other professionals, some scientists are liars, cheats, selfish, dishonest, and deceivers. I think of the fraud perpetrated by some lovers of evolution. For example, the Piltdown Man scam, Nebraska Man, Darwin’s theory of pangenesis, and Ernest Haeckel’s fraud that human embryos retrace their evolutionary ancestry, known as ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, are just a few notable examples.
The Book of Romans chapter one explains that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold or suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Their refusal to give up their sin is evident. God declares that His invisible attributes are seen in what He has made. Therefore, they are without excuse. Atheists and evolutionists suppress the truth about creation and our Creator. They all refuse to consider this truth, many lie about this truth, and many refuse to consider the evidence that supports the truth about God and His creation, which refutes the lies of macro evolution.
The Bible is the Word of the living God. Even some “Christians” claim that the Bible is not a supernatural book and should be treated like any other ancient manuscript. These ‘higher critics’ of the Bible cast doubt on the Word of God just like evolution does. But the Bible is full of the supernatural from beginning to end. The miracles of Jesus Christ proved all His other claims. There is no reason to doubt the Word of God. Don’t listen to the serpent as Eve and then Adam did. Nothing good will come of it.
Macroevolution is a pagan religion built on a foundation of presuppositional sand lodged in the imagination of man. I simply can’t believe any of it. I do not have that much faith in man.
“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers (godless scientists, intellectuals, and others), walking after their own lusts (Romans 1), and saying, where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation (uniformitarianism). For this, they willingly are ignorant of (Romans 1), that by the word of God the heavens were of old (Genesis), and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished (Genesis-global flood in Noah’s days). But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” 2 Peter 3:3-7, (emphasis added).
Let us let God have the last word on the subject of evolution.
Acts 12:18 describes Paul addressing the Gentiles’ worship of the unknown God and explaining about the God who created all things. The ignorance in their worship was what Paul was revealing to them. The unknown God of Intelligent Design is unveiled in the scriptures. The higher power (unknown God) of AA and the New Age movement is also made known through the scriptures. Macroevolution is a myth for the impenitent and those Christians who are weak in their faith of the Word of God.
