What Is Evolution?

Evolution is the theory that the world, universe, and everything they contain have evolved from one state of origin into what we have today. Since the beginning of creation, all mankind has been without excuse as to the existence of God and creation, however scientists and others who refuse to admit that fact have come up with the theory of evolution. While people and all of life itself evolves, meaning it develops or changes gradually, such as an embryo changing itself into a new born baby, most people have the wrong idea of what the creation/evolution question is all about. They don’t understand the real issues involved and think that evolution is a scientific theory. 

The theory of Evolution, and it is a theory, which has never been proven, or based on any scientific fact, at its most basic hypothesis has NO need of a Creator. Without the need of a Creator, you throw out the Book of Genesis, deny the fall of man into sin, and have no need of a Saviour in Jesus Christ. EVOLUTION and the belief in CREATION cannot coincide with each other.

How Evolution Evolved

Naturalists at the beginning of the 1800s, studying fossils suspected that some kind of evolution had given rise to living things around them. However, they had no unifying theory to explain how evolution might have occurred. Two scientists led the way in the search for a mechanism of evolution. The first systematic presentation of evolution was put forth by the French scientist Jean Baptiste de Lamarck (1774-1829) in 1809. Lamarck described a mechanism by which he believed evolution could occur. This mechanism was known as "the inheritance of acquired characteristics." His Example: He assumed that there were salamanders living in some grasslands.

Lamarck argued, that these salamanders had a hard time walking because their short legs couldn't trample the tall grasses or reach the ground. He believed that these salamanders began to slither on their bellies to move from place to place, And because they did not use their legs, the leg muscles wasted away thus becoming small. Lamarck's theory said that the salamanders passed this acquired trait to their offspring. In time the salamander's legs were used so rarely that they eventually disappeared. Thus, Lamarck argued, legless salamanders evolved from salamanders by inheriting the acquired characteristic of having no legs. Lamarck presented no experimental evidence or observation and his theory fell out of scientific favor.

However, a French naturalist George Buffon published this book, Theory of the Earth, in 1749 in which he rejected the accepted practice of basing natural history on the interpretation of the Scripture. Then almost 30 years later, Epochs of Nature, in which he developed the idea of "gradual change by observable causes"and tried to determine the chronological order of the appearance of species. Due to the immense popularity of his books throughout Europe, he was an important figure in the promotion of the doctrine of descent with modification. The doctrine of descent through modification was an affront to the well established idea of the fixity of species. Although both these theories faded, they remained an influence on British naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882), who later came up with his own theories.

Darwin, theorized that all life is related and has descended from one common ancestor, meaning that man, animals, and plant life are all related. Darwin's Theory of Evolution, as presented in his book "Origin of Species" has been widely accepted as fact, although it is based on Darwin's fallible speculations. His critics write, "If the theory of natural selection of Darwin is correct, why can't we see the intermediate forms of species, meaning the connecting links?" Darwin did not have the answer nor the archeological evidence to back it up. Although there is ample evidence for many species, fossil records provide almost no evidence for the intermediate connecting links he claims there are. Later, scientists revised Darwin's theory with their "Punctuated Equilibrium" evolutionary theory, supposedly making evolution invisible in the fossil record. Yet this theory is not verifiable in any way and is highly speculative.

And now for the truth, below you will find a brief explanation on the theories that Darwin based his studies on and how they cannot be proven. This is only basic information about these studies, I do not go into detail with them. This is for informational purposes only, I will not continue to corrupt myself nor my readers with every theory that tries to prove evolution to be true. These scientist take creation and make up their own conclusions based on bits and pieces of information just as people corrupt the Bible in the same manner. Creation is a wonderful and beautiful gift from God, whom took the time to make each and every man, woman, child, animal, plant, and even rock in it's own image. 

Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection

The theory of Natural selection basically states that "the strong survive." The basic idea is that when change occurs the their environment, those organisms best suited to the new element will thrive. Those who are not ideally suited will not be able to compete. Charles Darwin proposed this principle after observing some population variations in birds. He noticed that animals within a species often had slightly varied traits, and that those traits made some more suited to certain conditions. Darwin's theory was that, over time, the better suited animals would thrive and the others would die out completely. The resulting population would be entirely made up of those animals with the "better" trait. Over time, he reasoned, this could result in a species changing enough traits to eventually become a totally different creature, like a fish becoming a frog.

There has been no scientific evidence of any gradual and permanent change in species from one to another. There are plenty of proven cases of adaptation, which involves non-genetic changes. And there are tons of examples of natural selection changing the balance of populations within a species, but there is no known instances of a natural population experiencing a permanent, complete change into another specie. Observed genetic mutations are, in the natural world, crippling and usually fatal. While scientists prefer to point to the examples of birds and moths as proof of the theory of natural selection, they often refuse to see that the same examples are as contradictory as evolution itself.

Darwin's Theory of The Fossil Record

The "fossil record" refers to the placement of fossils throughout the surface layers of the Earth. Older fossils are buried more deeply than younger ones. Scientists use the placement of fossils as a guide for determining when life forms existed, and how they evolved. For example, flowering plants evolved from non-flowering plants because flower fossils becoming more and more primitive the deeper they go, until they disappear all together. There are no flower fossils below a certain depth. They theorize that flowering plants evolved from non-flowering plants, then began to diversifying themselves. This kind of progression is found throughout the fossil record.

Since Darwin put forth his original theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly one hundred and fifty years later, there has been no evidence of evolutionary transition found in the fossil record. In Darwin's own words, if his theory of "macro-evolution" were true, we would see a vast number of fossils at intermediate stages of biological development. In fact, based on standard mathematical models, we would see far more transitional forms in the fossil record than complete specimens. However, we see not one true transitional specimen has ever been found.

Darwin's Theory on The Age of The Earth

There is a lot of controversy regarding the age of the earth, even among Christians we cannot agree on whether or not the earth is billions of years old or just a few thousand. The Bible makes is clear how old the earth is right in the first book of the Bible, but many who believe in an old earth come up with a gap theory that between the Genesis Chapter 1:1-2 is where millions of years ago. Inserting vast ages into the Bible’s first chapter sets it at odds with modern secular scientific opinion regarding the order of events. The problem is there is many inconsistencies with the theory, one being that land mammals came before whales contrary to biblical claims. Many such examples show it is impossible to add long periods of time into the biblical account without seriously damaging the infallibly of the Bible.

The biggest problem created by their theory is that the Bible clearly states that there was absolutely no death before Adam sinned. Each of the old-earth views places death, bloodshed, disease, and suffering before Adam’s sin. However, the Bible teaches that all was “very good” when God made it. Would God have called everything that He had made “very good” if it were full of death and suffering? Absolutely not! Remember, Jesus healed the sick and resurrected the dead. Death and suffering were not a part of the original creation, but only entered because of the fall of man. Further evidence for this is provided by the fact that people and animals were originally vegetarians.

The Bible is self-authenticating. It does not need the help of fallible men to make it accurate. God says what He means and means what He says.

Darwin's Theory on Spontaneous Generation

What about the spontaneous generation of the first life form? Darwinian (and neo-Darwinian) evolution only focuses on the mechanism for modification over time between kinds of organisms. Evolutionary theory still doesn't deal with the first organism that arose by chance on our so-called "primitive planet" - this is called "spontaneous generation."

Without outside input, "spontaneous generation" is really the only explanation for the first organisms on Earth. The concept goes way back to Anaximander, a Greek philosopher in the 6th Century BC, who proposed that life arose from mud when exposed to sunlight. Although Darwin's theory focused on the mechanism for evolutionary change between life forms, he also maintained that original life probably arose from a "little pond" where sunlight was acting on organic salts. In the 1920's, scientists Oparin and Haldane updated the basic conjecture of "spontaneous generation" by proclaiming that ultraviolet light acting on a primitive atmosphere of water, ammonia & methane produced a "hot dilute soup" of basic life.

In fact, evolutionary scientists themselves started looking at the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism (a bacterium, for example) could result from a chance combining of life building blocks (amino acids, for example). Harold Morowitz, a renowned physicist from Yale University and author of Origin of Cellular Life (1993), declared that the odds for any kind of spontaneous generation were one chance in 10^{100,000,000,000.}

Conclusion

Evolutionists often challenge Creationists to come up with their own scientific explanation for origins. The only explanation the evolutionist will accept, however, is a materialistic one. Since the act of Creation was clearly a miraculous event, there can be no materialistic explanation. Whether or not we find the evidence for Creation compelling depends on our willingness to accept the Biblical revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient God. As we have seen, many scientists have great difficulty accepting the idea that some things may not have a natural explanation, they do not seem to fear the unknown so much as the unknowable. This threatens the pride and sovereignty of natural man who from the time of the fall wishes to be as gods deciding for him self what is right and wrong.