Creation 41(4):6, October 2019
Browse our latest digital issue Subscribe
Refuting evolutionary agitprop
Christians are not just commanded to defend the faith (1 Peter 3:15, Jude 3), but also to demolish opposing arguments (2 Corinthians 10:4–5). Part of this is knowing what they are in the first place! Another is knowing what the Bible really teaches.
In my 20+ years with CMI, the evolutionists’ methods have been constant, although they have needed to keep revising their specific ‘proofs’.
One is bait-and-switch or equivocation: changing the way a word is used. E.g.: Evolution = change. Things change. Therefore, evolution is true. But now evolution = prokaryotes changing into professors over billions of years.
However, the biblical creation model also teaches that things change! It does not teach ‘fixity of species’—this was taught by Darwin’s mentor Charles Lyell, and still is by some who want to add billions of years to the Bible. In reality, God programmed enormous genetic diversity into the created kinds, so they could produce many varieties. Indeed, creationists both before and after Darwin taught that relatively few created kinds produced a huge number of varieties. And every issue of Creation has an animal feature that shows this, as well as the amazing design features. This time it’s the ostrich (pp. 28–31). This doesn’t really stick its head in the sand—and neither should churches, when it comes to the anti-creation propaganda that their congregants face.
Also, you will find that many newspaper articles claiming to ‘prove evolution’ have really demonstrated only natural selection. But once more, this is also part of the creation model that includes the Fall. Creationist biologists before Darwin understood that natural selection was real. But they understood the facts about it, and so should we: natural selection culls the unfit; it doesn’t create the fit. The first we actually observe; the second is Darwin’s unproven conjecture (it doesn’t deserve to be called a ‘theory’).
Even worse for evolution, in many cases, even the ‘fittest’ are actually broken in some way. The reason is simple: there are many more ways to break things than to make things (cf. pp. 48–50). We have previously explained flightless beetles on windy islands and blind fish in caves, while this issue discusses loss of fitness in cancer cells resistant to anti-cancer drugs (p. 15).
‘Most scientists believe …’
Another reason people believe in evolution is, ‘Most scientists believe in evolution.’ But if you asked the evolution-believing scientists why they believe in evolution, they would also say, ‘Because most scientists believe in evolution.’ That is, they are basically arguing from authority, rather than from evidence, which is what scientists are supposed to do.
Hence every Creation issue has an interview with at least one Bible-believing scientist. This issue has a bonus: three such scientists (pp. 20–23, 40–43).
Long ages vs the Flood
One thing absolutely necessary for evolution (although not sufficient) is millions of years. But didn’t Darwin live before radiometric dating? Indeed so, thus the millions of years didn’t come from radiometric dating. Rather, the idea of long ages came a few decades before Darwin, from secular geology. In particular, even before examining the evidence, geologists rejected the Flood as an acceptable explanation. They decreed instead that we must use processes we see happening now. Because they are so slow and gradual, they must have taken millions of years to build the rock layers.
We need to undo this! We should re-admit the global Flood of Genesis 6–8, which Jesus affirmed (Luke 17:26–27). Since intensity can often be traded for time, if we have such an intense process, we no longer need the millions of years. And this makes sense of much data, including octopus ink that still paints although it’s claimed to be 95 million years old (pp. 12–14) and ‘110-million-year-old’ spider eyes that are still reflective (pp. 36–37). It also explains the Ice Age, first proposed by anti-Darwinist Louis Agassiz (pp. 44–47).
Positive case for creation
Although most of this editorial is about demolishing evolutionary arguments, we also present arguments for the Bible. For example, the fantastic designs in living creatures, such as the manta ray’s filter (pp. 26–27) and sound-sensitive flowers (p. 56). We also show how much we can learn from the real people in Genesis, such as Enoch (pp. 24–25).
We hope this issue will be both instructive and enjoyable to you, and to those you share it with.
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.