What Evolution does not, and cannot, answer

Evolution cannot answer how our universe came into existence from nothing. But the Bible can. In Romans 4:17, “God calls things that are not as though they were.”

Paul wrote this in the context of Isaac being born when his parents, Abraham and Sarah, were incapable of having children. There wasn’t a leftover egg in Sarah’s womb that could be fertilized, and even if there was, Abraham couldn’t fertilize it. “His (Abraham’s) body was as good as dead,” and “Sarah’s womb was also dead,” verse 19. Neither Abraham or Sarah had the capability in their bodies anymore to produce a child. Their reproductive equipment was no longer functioning. God stepped in, however, and produced a living child from dead matter.

Scientists would love to produce life from dead matter, too. They’d love to de-extinct a woolly mammoth, for instance, but they can’t without a living cell from a woolly mammoth. They can collect a million tons of DNA from dead woolly mammoths, and sequence the genome of a woolly mammoth and copy it perfectly in a laboratory, but they cannot bring a woolly mammoth to life again without a living cell. And even if they did create a perfect copy of a woolly mammoth genome, it could only reproduce itself inside an already existing living cell. It would have to be placed inside a mammoth’s closest relative on earth right now, like an African elephant, but the creature born would be a mix of mammoth and elephant, so it’s still not producing a perfect mammoth.

A full-sized, perfect living replica of a woolly mammoth cannot be produced from “things that are not.” And that applies to anything that’s become extinct. No creature that became extinct years ago, or only seconds ago, can be restored to life in its original form without a living cell from that creature being placed inside the cell of a living creature of the same kind. We cannot de-extinct or bring to life what’s dead. We cannot, as Paul wrote, “call things that are not as though they were.” We cannot “call” woolly mammoths that “are not” in living form anywhere on earth right now, and bring them back in their original form, like “they were,” or used to be, when they roamed the frozen north in their millions.

And Isaac wouldn’t have existed as a full-sized, perfect living replica of a human either, if it hadn’t been for God miraculously bringing Abraham’s and Sarah’s dead reproductive equipment to life again, where cells that “were not” now became “as though they were,” just like they used to be.

Evolution has no explanation for how Isaac came into existence, but God does.

Advertisements

Does it matter if God exists?

Evolutionary scientists have created a world without God. He never existed, they say. The world just came into being by natural forces.

Assuming that to be the case, then what kind of world have we got? What’s it like?

Well, it doesn’t exactly inspire much hope, because according to the theory of evolution, the driving force behind this world boils down to just one thing: Survival. You either adapt or die, chum, and all through creation it’s this way. The animals and plants we have today, evolution says, are those that adapted best and quickest to climate change, food supply and predators. They’re the survivors. They did what they had to do to survive and that’s why they’re with us today, because that’s the way the world is and always has been. It all comes down to “survival of the fittest.”

It all sounds terribly harsh and cold, but to an evolutionary scientist like Richard Dawkins, it’s beautiful. Look at the ingenious mechanisms plants and animals have come up with to assure their survival, he says – and how they came up with them all by themselves too, proving the world can take care of itself without any need for God, a higher power, or “Intelligent Design.”

Well it may be beautiful and enduring to the likes of Richard Dawkins, but the bottom line is still Survival. We’re all here for no other purpose than surviving. One has to wonder, of course, why a universe came into existence in the first place if its only purpose was to keep itself surviving, but that’s the world of evolutionary science. Survival is the reason for everything, and there’s no point in looking for anything more meaningful in this world than that.

It’s not surprising, then, that we humans are so completely preoccupied with survival too. We’ve created a dog-eat-dog world, where self-advantage is all that matters – beating the competition, climbing the ladder at work, being a nice guy in the community – all to promote ourselves and our own well-being. Why? Because it’s survival of the fittest, right? That’s the way life is, and for billions of people on this planet, that is the way life is. Every day is a struggle for survival, and yes, only the fittest survive. But evolutionists don’t seem to mind that at all. It thinks survival of the fittest is beautiful.

But that’s the insane world of Evolution. It cares for nothing but how things evolve to survive, and if the weak have to suffer and disappear because they don’t adapt, so what?

So, does it matter if God exists, or not? Well, look what the alternative to God is….

Are Christianity and Evolution really that far apart?

Darwinists and Christians have locked horns ever since Charles Robert Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. The issue is how we humans came to be.

For Christians there is only one way we came to be: We were miraculously created by God. In 1871, however, Darwin wrote that we came into existence by the reaction of chemicals in “some warm little pond,” and we evolved into humans after that through adaptation to environmental change and circumstance.

Is there provable evidence either way? Yes, Christians say, because in the Bible version of the Origin of Species, the book of John, God created humans to become his children, and that can be seen happening with observable evidence today. There are humans who are obviously and noticeably like God.

So, what’s God like? The Bible says he’s like Jesus. That’s why Jesus came to this earth, to show us what God is like (John 1:14, 18). To be born of God, then, a person would have to be obviously and noticeably like Jesus. So, what was Jesus like? He was “full of grace and truth” (verse 14). What people saw in Jesus was a man of immense kindness and wisdom. He deeply cared for people, and his teachings made so much sense: Don’t judge people, don’t hate, don’t seek revenge, don’t make promises and don’t ignore someone you’ve hurt, because they all have their nasty kickbacks.

Anyone born of God, then, would be like that. It’s one great living proof that God created humans, because what God created humans to be like can be observed and seen happening today.

But that applies equally to Evolution, because it too can be seen happening. The one great living proof that what Darwin says is true is that animals, plants and insects today are still adapting and mutating according to environmental change and circumstance. We can actually observe creatures evolving, like insects that evolve noticeable differences after years of insecticide use.

Seeing is believing.

But that applies equally to both Christians and Darwinists. A human who clearly demonstrates the characteristics of Jesus proves that God created humans. And a creature that clearly demonstrates the characteristics of evolution proves that Evolution happens too.

Are Christianity and Evolution really that far apart, then? No, because both can be seen to be true by observable evidence. Creatures can be seen to be evolving physically, just as humans can be seen to be evolving into the likeness of Jesus. Evolution happens; creatures change. But what God created humans for can also be observed, because there are creatures on this earth right now who are evolving the radical characteristics of Jesus. They can be seen changing too.

Why would evolution come up with homosexuality?

An eight year old boy was munching thoughtfully on his sandwich during lunch hour at school following his morning classes, in which the virtues of same-sex marriage and alternative lifestyles had been explored, and how they tied in with how we humans evolve.

Evolution, the boy learnt, explains how animals, plants and insects adapt to changing circumstances to survive, thrive and propagate their species. Humans too, in the same way, have been adapting to changing cultures, witness the growing interest in exploring one’s sexual identity and orientation, leading to new ways of defining family, like same-sex marriage, and having two parents of the same sex.

The boy had been wondering about this, because Mabel, three rows back, had two mothers, and this phenomenon so interested him that he asked the teacher in class how Mabel’s two mothers could have produced Mabel. He remembered last year’s Sex Ed class and how babies are made, involving both a Mom and a Dad, so how, then, could Mabel’s mothers produce a baby without a Dad?

Well, the teacher replied, some people don’t want babies involving a Mom and a Dad, so they find other ways of having children, which works for them.

The boy, being naturally inquisitive, wanted to know why people don’t want babies involving a Mom and a Dad, and what other ways there are of having children. The teacher explained that some people, just like some animals, are homosexual, meaning they’re attracted to members of their own sex. It doesn’t mean they can’t have babies, though, because in the case of animals they can be uncles and aunts to other animals’ babies, or in the case of humans they can adopt other people’s babies, and bring those babies up as their own children.

But this got the boy wondering, because if it’s the natural order of things, as the teacher had explained earlier, that animals, plants and insects do everything they can to survive, thrive and propagate their species, and that’s how we humans came to be as well, why would Evolution come up with homosexuality? Surely, homosexuality is working against the natural order of things. Homosexuals can’t make children, so isn’t that working against humans surviving, thriving and propagating as a species? It didn’t tie in with Evolution at all.

And Mabel wouldn’t have come into being either if it hadn’t been for a Mom and a Dad. So why would people who want children marry members of their own sex, when two people of the same sex can’t produce children? Why would Evolution do that? It was all a bit of a puzzle.