We have been looking in this series on apologetics and the role that science plays in Christianity. So far, I think I have shown that science and Christianity are not incompatible. In fact there are many well known scientists throughout history and today, who are Christians, but see no problem with combining their love for science with their love for God.
But what about evolution? Can you be a Christian and believe in evolution at the same time. Some would say no and others would say yes. I wouldn’t want to make that call and I don’t believe it’s mine to make anyway, I’ll happily let God sort all that out. My part is to love people whatever they believe and not create stumbling blocks to prevent them encountering God. What I will say though, is I have major problems with evolution and I plan to set some of those arguments out below. This series so far has mainly been about defending Christianity but today I am fully on the offensive.
Let’s just establish from the outset what I mean by evolution. I am not talking about ‘micro’ evolution, that is the subtle changes that can occur within a species. I think it is fairly clear and has been demonstrated that these things can occur. What I am talking about is referred to as ‘macro’ evolution. That is that major changes can occur; such as the belief that an amoeba developed into ever more complex creatures until eventually a human evolved. This is the belief that given enough time and luck, things will completely change from one thing into another. I’m sorry but I just don’t buy it. For me evolution exists because of man’s futile attempts to do away with God and quite frankly it is ridiculous.
Let me briefly set out some of the glaring errors with evolution;
Mutation and natural selection – In theory a mutation in DNA increases a creature’s natural ability to survive so it adopts this mutation through natural selection. This might conceivably work if it took one gene to control one part but given that each part of a creature is incredibly complex with different components all needing to be in place at the same time for something to evolve, it makes the chance of this working nigh-on impossible. By way of illustration imagine that all the components needed to build a house (bricks, cement, nails, windows, tiles, pipes etc etc) were all lying on the ground. Now tie a hammer to a dog’s tail and let it roam around the parts with its wagging tail and see how long it takes its wagging tail to build a house. That’s how long it would take to adapt one gene, let alone a completely new creature.
That argument is only relevant if you believe that mutations can be beneficial. All known mutations are at best neutral but in most cases are either harmful or fatal. Not a great start.
Fossil record – Evolution is all about constant change, whether gradual or in leaps. The thing about fossils is they are all complete animals. For evolution to occur one would expect multiple examples of fossils with evolving creatures. There are none. That’s right, not even one (out of millions found). Darwin even recognised this himself. Writing in his seminal book “Origin of species” he wrote “The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”
The fossil record pretty much proves that evolution never happened.
There are loads of other arguments against evolution such as the fact that life has never been created from non-life (the law of biogenesis), and also it is disproved by the second law of thermodynamics which states that all natural processes become more disordered over time. It prevents the invention of new organs by mutations ,because without a construction system already in place, things naturally fall apart.
It seems that the tide is slowly starting to turn. It has been very difficult to argue against evolution as up until recently it has been accepted by all the influential academic figures in the scientific community. But there is an increasing groundswell in scientific circles which is starting to see through the obvious flaws of this theory and many hundreds of well respected scientists and educationalists have stated that they no longer believe in evolution. See the 22 page list here sceptics list
My opinion is that man in his pride and rebellion refuses to admit that there is a God and will hold on tightly to any alternative to a creator, because the consequences for admitting the existence of a God would be unthinkable. The following quote by Richard Lewontin pretty much sums up a lot of people’s thinking;
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are 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. “
At least he’s honest. It’s incredible that they would rather believe absurdities than admit or even entertain the existence of God.
If you would like to study this subject further, there are loads of materials and websites to visit. I would recommend the following website https://answersingenesis.org/evolution/