What The Bible Says About Evolution
All through school we are taught that man descended from the apes. Over millions of years,
from a single celled organism, by way of radiation, natural selection, and other external
forces, all creatures evolved. From a single cell to multiple cells. From fish to frog.
From lizard to bird. From ape to man. Considering the time span this all took place in,
supposedly millions of years, it sounds pretty feasible. After all, who can predict what
may happen over great periods of time?
Other people pose arguments in favor of man being created by God. After all, the Bible says,
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"
(Genesis 1:1). These two are obviously views that cannot stand along
side one another. So which one is right?
Let's look at the argument for evolution. First, consider the fossil record. As of yet,
we know that no "missing link" has been found to account for the transition between ape and
man. As a matter of fact, there are no fossils in the possession of scientists that could
account for a transition from any species to another. That is not to say that there are no
changes within species, but there is no evidence that one species has ever become another.
With that in mind, think about the "ape men" that have been found to date. Over time, each
and every one has been shown to be a misinterpretation of the evidence, poor speculation, or
an outright lie. None has ever panned out. All have been disproved.
Next, the scientific law of entropy tells us that everything is moving from a state of order
to a state of disorder. Yet those who teach the theory of evolution would have us
believe that all living things are moving from a state of disorder to a state of order, and
have been so doing for millions of years. This despite the fact that everything else around
us is doing just the opposite. Entropy has been proven to be true; that is why it is
considered a scientific law. Evolution has not been proven; that is why it is still
called the theory of evolution. So why would responsible scientists support a theory
that not only has not been proven, but that contradicts a proven law of science?
Let's look at an argument for creation.
I believe it was sometime in the seventies that solar power became popular, and that we got
to the point of having solar cells small enough to go in a watch or hand-held calculator.
Imagine, with some metal, silicon, and glass, we can power electronic devices. These small
cells take light from the sun and convert it into electrical energy for use by our technology.
It is quite amazing how small they have become, and the power they can provide. Would you ever
imagine that solar cells could come about by chance or evolution?
Imagine this - for thousands of years before man designed and created solar cells,
they existed in nature. Surprised? That's right. Look at a tree or a plant.
Look at a leaf on that tree or plant. Each leaf contains hundreds of thousands,
if not millions of solar cells, each one much smaller and more complex than any solar cell man
has ever created. Each cell in a leaf is involved in photosynthesis - the process by
which the cells in the leaf take light from the sun and convert it to energy for use by
the plant they are a part of. Sound familiar? It should, since it is essentially
the same statement I made in the last paragraph regarding man-made solar cells. The only
difference is that man-made solar cells provide energy for our creations, whereas a plant's
"solar cells" provide energy for growth and other functions within the plant. Considering
it took man several thousand years to develop technology to the point of having very small
solar cells, and let us not forget they were designed through intelligence and created by
"intelligent" beings, would you presume to think that the microscopic solar cells that exist
in the leaves of a plant could have come about by random chance or evolution? I think not.
They, in and of themselves, should be evidence enough to anyone that there is great design in
all that exists around us (including our own bodies). And if we recognize that there is
design, then there must be a designer.
If this hasn't convinced you and you would like a more "logical" or "philosophical" argument
for creation, click here.
For a more thorough handling of the evolution/creation debate, visit
The Revolution Against Evolution.