CREATION VS. EVOLUTION
All Bible references are from the Holman Christian Standard Bible, unless otherwise noted
Many people believe in the theory of evolution. We say theory because, scientifically speaking, it remains only a theory. Some may argue there is so much evidence pointing to evolution that it's ludicrous to believe in creation. The purpose of this page to reveal the facts regarding the creation/evolution debate. We will start with Creation first.
In the first book of the Bible, there is the basic account of how the universe came into existence. First, God created the heavens and Earth's foundation (Genesis 1:1-2). Next, He created light, and divided the light from the darkness. (Genesis 1:3-5). After that, God formed the atmosphere to divide the water on earth from the water in the sky (cloud canopy) (Genesis 1:6-8). Following that, He created dry land (Genesis 1:9-10). Once land was established, He proceeded to create the vegetation covering the earth (Genesis 1:11-12). After that was ready, He created the moon, sun and stars to give us light and to help us keep time (Genesis 1:14-19). After all this was set, He was ready to create the animals dwelling on the land, the sea, and the sky (Genesis 1:20-25). Lastly, God created humans (Genesis 1:26-27). Notice, when God created plants and animals He created each thing according to its own kind. As for humans, we were also made as humans, is indicated at Genesis 1:27, and Genesis 2:7.
On the other hand, there is the theory of evolution: The idea that modern life forms existing today resulted from millions of years of changes from one life form to another due to genetic mutations over the millennia. Archaeological findings are thought to support this theory of evolution. Do these finds reveal gradual change over time? We invite you to think seriously about this: Millions of years. Gradual changes occurring over those millions of years. If this is true, then there should be tens of thousands of transitional fossils found worldwide.
Of course, there are those who believe in neither conventional evolution nor creation. There is an alternative theory called Punctuated Equilibrium. This alternative theory states that, instead of a gradual changes throughout the years, organisms were produced by sudden changes in the genetic code every so often. This should also produce vast quantities of transitional fossils, since the "newer" versions of animals would be around a while before the next sudden change.
WEIGHING BOTH SIDES
So, then, how many transitional fossils have scientists found?
"The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!"
And now, decades later, there hasn't been much more to add to the collection. If evolution were true, then where are all the transitional fossils?
Archaeopteryx is commonly thought of as a transitional fossil, and was first discovered in the early 1860's in Germany. It has the major characteristics of a bird: Feathers and a wishbone, though it also possesses an opposable hallux, teeth and no beak - not usual features for birds. Does this make it a transitional reptile/bird? No, it makes it simply an unusual bird, just as todays penguins are unusual birds: Penguins have feathers, beaks, build nests and lay eggs just like any other bird. However, they also have solid bones, flippers, and insulating blubber -- yet nobody considers them to be a dolphin/bird transitional species.
Along with this, if reptiles gradually changed into birds, then there should be many transitional archaeopteryx fossils found; Fossils without complete features. But they don't exist. All that have been found come with complete feathers, not transitional ones. Therefore, Archaeopteryx is not an example of a transitional fossil, it's simply an example of an unusual bird.
But lets keep going with this archaeopteryx thing. How does a change occur between a reptile and a bird? Reptiles are cold blooded, and birds are warm blooded. Reptile bones are too dense and improperly structured for flight. Feathers would overheat a cold blooded reptile. In other words, transitional reptile-birds would be self destructive to the point that they'd extinct themselves before getting to the point of viability. Could Punctuated Equilibrium be drastic and cause a fully formed bird to hatch from a reptile's egg? No, because reptile eggs and bird eggs function in completely different ways: Reptiles are cold blooded creatures, thus their eggs lay in the dirt or sand without needing a parent to incubate them. A reptilian mother, being cold blooded, is unable to incubate her eggs, thus incubation wasn't meant to be. Science has shown that incubating a reptilian egg will kill the developing animal. Birds, on the other hand, must be incubated in order to hatch. Lack of incubation will kill the developing bird. Therefore, the parent must sit on the nest of eggs. Since cold blooded reptiles cannot successfully incubate warm blooded eggs, any birds in their eggs would die, meaning birds could never exist. Can you see the problems with this issue?
So, lets try another couple of species, and compare both versions of evolution (classic vs. punctuated equilibrium) and see if a fish can become an amphibian:
Clearly, evolution would work against itself.
In spite of their flawed arguments, many still hold to the idea of evolution happening in bacteria and viruses. Let's start with the influenza virus first, since that's a well-known mutater:
Because influenza virus mutates rapidly from year to year, the medical community must reinvent a new influenza vaccine each year to give to the public. The flu you were immunized against last year won't be the same flu you'll be immunized against this year. Does this prove evolution exists? No, it does not. Although each year's influenza is different from the year before, it continues to remain influenza. It doesn't mutate into pneumonia, bronchitis, or tuberculosis - it stays within its own kind no matter how many mutations it sustains.
Then there's the problem with antibiotic resistant bacteria. Staphylococcus is famous for this. Some forms of Staph have grown to become resistant to certain kinds of antibiotics, causing major medical issues. However, this is not an example of evolution either. It is simply a matter of the individual bacterium's strength. To illustrate: Say you have an army of good, strong, fighting men. If at some point a terrorist infects them with something deadly, such as smallpox, it will kill off a great number of the men in your army. However, a few of the men will survive the disease, rendering them immune. Generally, strong healthy bodies beget more strong, healthy bodies. Thus, these surviving men will likely sire strong, immune-prone children. If, eventually, all the average people are killed off by smallpox, that leaves the strong one remaining ones to carry on their strength. Eventually, you'll have a population of people that are more resistant to smallpox than the generation before. The people haven't evolved, it's just that the weak ones were eliminated. This same principle can be applied to the occurrence of antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Of course, we could go on and on with many more examples of how evolution is a weak theory, but we believe you get the point: There is more evidence for intelligent design than there is for the theory of evolution. To ignore this is simply an exercise in futility. As the Apostle Paul stated:
From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)