Church of Christ - Evolution

We’ll start with the second law of thermodynamics, known as “entropy.” Entropy
tells us that all life and everything on Earth is constantly winding down and going
toward disorder. You can observe entropy in your own home. To set up the
experiment, simply go home and don’t put any energy into cleaning for one week.
Now look around your home, is it as clean as it was when you began the
experiment? If it's anything like my home, it now looks like a disaster area and it will
take a lot of energy on your part to get things back in order. You have just observed
entropy. (For a dull and confusing scientific explanation of entropy, click here.)
Anything, when left to itself, will not become more orderly, but will become a mess
and fall apart eventually, just as happens in an unkempt home. This is a proven Law
which flies in the face of evolution’s claims. You see evolution would have us believe
that nature, left to itself produced the highly complex and ordered human body from
an original single-celled organism… excuse me, but… would the LAW of Entropy
please let evolution know that this is impossible!

“Okay,” says evolution, “so maybe I couldn’t have happened because of that small
entropy technicality, but what about all the fossils?” There ARE a great number of
fossils that have been found through the centuries, yet with all the fervor that some
have put into the search, no one has been able to find “the missing link” (or the real
missing link anyway… many have dug up things like a pig’s tooth and claimed it was
part of the missing link, or then there was “piltdown man” but that poor chap turned
out to be a hoax made of a human skull and an ape’s jaw…) which would prove the
theory of evolution. In fact not one “intermediate” life form, whether a lizard with
wings, a monkey that talks or even fish with legs have been found, yet if evolution
was in fact the trend there should be countless instances of such intermediates upon
the earth. After all, evolution has supposedly been happening very slowly for 4.6
billion years (or is it 2 billion? It seems evolutionists are a little fuzzy on dating
methods sometimes too…).   Supposedly there should be billions of years worth of
intermediate fossils out there… Is it logical that none have been found?

“That’s not fair,” cries evolution, “Just look at nature!” How about nature – not only
the fossils, but life on Earth today? A hobby of mine is keeping fish tanks. Never in
observing my own fish or searching through countless dealer tanks have I come
across a single half-fish, half-frog or a fish with fur or a fish with legs even… Why
do we see no intermediate life forms alive today? If life on Earth is constantly
evolving, there should have been some observable account of it actually happening
somewhere within the confines of recorded history. Yet we have no such observable
life forms… is this logical? Simply produce an intermediate life form, in the process
of evolving, and the debate will be over.

Some would tell us that such things as bacteria becoming tolerant or immune to
antibacterial soaps, or crop-destroying pests becoming immune to insecticides is
proof of evolution. Adaptation IS NOT evolution (read the small section in the first
article in this series about macroevolution and microevolution). If you can admit that
there is a creator, then it is not any great leap to assume that an omniscient creator
would build-in the ability to adapt within his creations. Would God have created
Adam and Eve in the region of Mesopotamia and not built within their genetic code
the ability for their offspring to inhabit all areas of the world, no matter how different
the climate and environment may differ from that of their garden home? That
WOULD be illogical. The fact that humans and animals can adapt to many situations
in order to ensure their survival in no way proves evolution, it simply shows that the
creator cared enough about them to see that they could carry on.
Allow me to switch gears again and ask, why are there amoebas? If the tendency is
to evolve and amoebas are supposedly what we all evolved from, why are there any
left? If one evolved why didn’t they all evolve? Even if some were in the slow lane,
they’ve had 4.6 billion years now (according to evolutionists)! What are they all
waiting for? If the trend is toward higher function and order, why were some
“lesser” organisms left behind by the evolutionary surge? Most evolutionists will
scoff at this questioning as “typical creationist bunk” yet somehow through all the
looking-down-their-nose and name calling they manage to never give a satisfactory
answer to this “typical” question.

There are also logical problems with the mechanisms that supposedly bring about
evolution. Supposedly what happens is that one or two organisms within a species
are born with a certain mutation. No, don’t feel sorry for them, the mutation turns
out to work in favor of the organism! Then, sense the mutant organism is getting
along so well in life, others in the species want to mate with the mutated organism
therefore bringing about a whole new generation of mutants and so on and so forth.
This is surely perfectly logical seeing as how mutations are such wonderful things. I’
m sure that if I had been born with a third eye that all the young ladies certainly
would have been knocking my door down at the opportunity to have some lovely
three eyed children.   Folks, I ask you this, if birds supposedly evolved from reptiles,
what “favorable mutation” could have possibly brought about this step? What good
would a lizard with half a wing be? The poor thing never would have survived those
animals who ranked above him in the food chain.

I think that it is not hard for us to observe that (the vast majority of) mutations are
not a good thing. It may be a gruesome thought, but what happens, friends, if a
mother cat has a litter of kittens and one of them is deformed in some way? I will
not elaborate but suffice it to say that the little mutated kitty would certainly never
grow to an age when it would be able to produce offspring. Mutations are not
favorable and it would be illogical to claim that they bring about "higher" forms of life.

This brings me to the next bone I have to pick with evolution. If I am the product of
evolution, then I am bitterly disappointed over some of the advantages that many
lesser organisms have over me. Why do “higher” life forms not have abilities of
“lower life forms?” A starfish can regenerate a lost arm, some lizards can regenerate
a lost tail, a lobster can regrow a claw, surely the ability to grow back a lost
appendage would be a great advantage to the “highly evolved” human race, yet there
are so many amputees among us… I understand that arctic whales (and some other
animals) have a “wonder-net” of specialized blood vessels so that their extremities
don’t get cold, yet the highly evolved Eskimos can’t go out without their parkas…
The list could go on, but the point is if we evolved from these life forms, why don’t
we have these admirable and helpful traits that would surely be of great use to us. Its
just not logical, is it?

I won’t dwell too long on the conundrum of specialized sexual organs. I would
simply like to ask why organisms that could multiply by spontaneous regeneration and
splitting of cells, ever develop into something that reproduces by intercourse? And
how is it that the different specialized organs required for males and females, just
happen to have evolved at the same time? Not to mention that once these organs
evolved, the new organisms immediately knew exactly what to do with them! Again,
not very logical really…

Many specialized organs continue to throw a cog in evolution’s works. Just look at
the human eye. (Note: don’t attempt to look at your own eye unless you’re in front of
a mirror) We don’t often think about our eyes, but when it comes down to it, just this
one part of our body is an incredibly complex thing! I’m no anatomy major but off
the top of my head I know my eye is made of a cornea, a retina, a pupil, an iris, the
occipital nerve and other tongue twisting parts. How did all of these parts evolve at
the same time? Surely a non working eyeball would not have been a “favorable”
mutation to any organism. Mr. Darwin himself seemed to have some trouble with
such questions…

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to
different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of
spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection,
seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155.

Let me add to your doubts, Mr. Darwin, a vast chasm exists between inorganic and
organic realms. (Mr. Louis Pasteur proved this way back in 1859! Read this article.)
Even simple cells are not so simple, you see. Nuclei, lipids, proteins, nucleic acids,
ribosomes, golgi bodies, “the mighty” mitochondria, and many more structures make
up a “simple cell” and evolution expects us to believe that all of these structures
spontaneously formed from the “primordial ooze.” Once this structure was formed,
it then magically came to life (with the help of Jiminy Cricket, no doubt) to become
the very first living thing on Earth! I guess congratulations would be in order,
except… If this was supposed to have happened by chance in the huge open system
of the earth, why have scientists not been able to duplicate it in closed experiments
with precise measurements and complex equations and equipment in a lab?    Rocks
will never breath, get up and run-away, or pee behind your sofa, which no doubt
makes them the ideal pet choice for many, but unfortunately, does not make them
alive. No matter what we mix together in a petri dish, if none of it is alive to start
with, nothing living will come out. It would be illogical to expect otherwise.

Also, scientists have failed to ever make one animal turn into anything resembling
another animal. No matter what they do, the genetic material in one animal won’t
transform into the genetic materials of another. It has been proven by science: Each
type of living organism has its own unique structure of the DNA molecule and can
only specify the reproduction of its same kind by the genetic code it contains. This
reinforces the Biblical principle of the stability of "kinds."

Genesis 1:21-25 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature
that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and
every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.   22 And God
blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas,
and let fowl multiply in the earth.   23 And the evening and the morning were
the fifth day.   24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature
after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind:
and it was so.   25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and
cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his
kind: and God saw that it was good.

It has been proven by science, long after it was taught by God that an animal can
only bring forth life of its own kind. And we know that each “kind” has been here
since the beginning. And that’s not the only place where science ought to have just
listened to the bible to begin with…

To read more about science and the bible, continue to “Science in the Scriptures”

Questions or comments? Contact the author justinmurdock@thegospelfortoday.com