A Question I Was Asked:

Why Even Worry About Evolution?

The Question:

Why worry about the teaching of evolution? Science can't even explain away why - right at the beginning - there was matter, information, life (however 'low' scientists may believe that life was), or various laws of physics - where did those things come from in the first place? No scientist ever tries to explain these things. Science is beaten before it even starts when it tries to exclude God. Science itself now also believes that there was a point of creation (whatever they call that), that there was a time when our universe did not exist. If they cannot see God in those things they are beyond hope.

In these ways they already acknowledge God. They are beaten before they even start. So, why worry about evolution?

UK Apologetics Reply:

I take your point, which is well made. It is perfectly correct to point out that in their (rather quiet) acknowledgement of these facts of life, modern evolutionary scientists already - albeit indirectly - admit a higher power, yet they will never verbally or intellectually admit that higher power, they will never admit a belief in anything supernatural. Rather, they carelessly assume that such chemicals, such life (of a very 'low' sort, according to their theory), such information, those laws of physics, were all there in the first place! You are right and perhaps we creationists should spend longer in challenging these particular areas.

But that does not mean that we should not challenge evolutionary dogma! We must challenge these things. What did Paul the Apostle say about this?

We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:5).

In short, these are all fruitful areas which the Christian Apologist must employ in his/her defence of Theism and of Christianity. To preach Christ, and Him crucified, we must be prepared to use all tools. Where a big lie has been so widely accepted by the public which - if it were true - rules out the need of a Creator God, we must be at work in telling the truth! Problem is: many people do not reason at a deep level and if they hear about macro-evolution often enough, they tend to accept it; they tend to think, 'well, if scientists tell us it is true then it surely must be true.' In like manner many 1930s Germans fell for Nazi propaganda because they were surrounded by it. They began to say, 'If Herr Goebells and Herr Hitler say this then it must be right, they are educated men and great patriots.'

In the case of evolution, I still find that many Christians are confused by the whole issue, so they prefer to avoid it. But there are major problems here which the Christian who is prepared to 'give an answer' must face up to and get just a little basic knowledge of, so let me once again attempt to outline the basics of this topic right here:

What is called 'evolution' may be divided up into two sections. Keeping these two boxes entirely separate can help a Christian better represent evolution (where it is right, where it is wrong) to others:


(Readily accepted by Christianity)

Strictly speaking it is debatable whether this part should even be referred to as "evolution." This refers to natural selection, often according to local factors, variations in climate etc. This is fully allowed for within the Genesis revelation and presents absolutely no problem for the Theist, or Christian.

In short, dogs and cats always remain dogs and cats but may greatly vary as to type, according to various factors, including of course, selective breeding. There is scope for variation, in the human family too; there are Chinese, Europeans, south Americans - but we all remain human beings.

Despite the common perception, Natural Selection was first outlined - not by Charles Darwin at all - but by Edward Blyth, a Christian who fully accepted divine creation.


(Rejected by all authentic Christianity but accepted by liberal Christianity)

Macro-evolution refers to the Grand Theory. This states - without even the slightest evidence - that micro-evolution eventually led to a break in 'distinct kinds,' which, over many millions of years, even led to Man evolving from the ape family ('distinct kinds' is not really the correct term but I want all of us to grasp this).

It is worth repeating that whereas micro-evolution can be seen everywhere, no evidence exists for this 'macro-evolution' at all. Strongly mitigating against this theory, is that if a 'kind' does break, that break will be barren and unable to reproduce. This is what is seen in both plant and animal life. In response to this obvious fact, evolutionary scientists call upon 'mutations,' even when it is fully established that mutations are around 95-98% deleterious. Mutations result from a loss in genetic information, not an improvement. This is why Darwin and his followers came to insist on a millions, or even billions, of years old earth - he knew that no reasonably intelligent person would ever accept that such changes could ever happen just over a few thousand years. Lyell's 'uniformitarianism' was just getting off the ground in Darwin's age and he quickly jumped on this and absorbed it into his teaching to justify his 'many millions of years' scenario so badly needed by evolutionary theory.

It is also well known (evolutionists won't usually even dispute it), that the fossil record does not back up this theory, in fact, the fossil record presents us with 'the cambrian explosion,' in which all life suddenly appears together! However, when stating "all life," it should be understood that many examples of life never appear in any form within the fossil record. True 'missing links' (between ape and man) remain undiscovered as do any other links to show that this macro-evolution ever occurred.

Many geologic text books present students with the 'geologic table' going back to a highly speculative circa 500 million years of 'earth history,' even when it is known that such geological strata is never actually found in this form anywhere on earth. What is actually found is unusual rock/strata in certain places which looks like certain reasoned strata ages, such as at Lulworth, Dorset, England which looks like 'jurassic rock formation,' (as geologists postulate that this should look if it existed).

Probably the final thing to mention here is that radiocarbon dating (and other similar dating methods) are now known to be highly deceptive and defective too. No such dating method even works without a suggested date being fed in to the estimation by the researcher. In this manner it has been shown that even the new strata thrown up by the 1980s Mount St Helens eruption in the United States can be dated to being millions of years old!

Be aware that it is part of the strategy of the typical evolutionary apologist to regularly confuse these two quite distinct sections. Here in the UK, Richard Dawkins and David Attenborough do this constantly.

Robin A. Brace. October 2nd, 2012.