Evolution And Creation
There is, however, an area where many would say that modern science and the Bible are hopelessly at odds. Most scientists believe in the theory of evolution, which teaches that all living things evolved from a simple form of life that came into existence millions of years ago. The Bible , on the other hand, teaches that each major group of living things was specifically created and reproduces only according it's kind. Man, it says, was created "out of dust from the ground". (Genesis 1:21;2:7)
Is this a glaring scientific error in the Bible?
Let us look more closely at what science knows, as opposed to what it theorizes.
The theory of evolution was popularized by Charles Darwin. When he was on the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific, Darwin was strongly impressed by the different species of finches on the different islands, which, he deduced, must all have desended from Just one ancestral species. Partly because of this observation, he promoted the theory that all living things come from one original, simple form. The driving force behind the evolution of higher creatures from lower, he asserted, was natural selection, the survival of the fittest. Thanks to evolution, he claimed, land animals developed from fish ,birds from reptiles, and so forth.
As a matter of fact, what Darwin observed in those isolated islands was not out of harmony with the Bible, which allows for variation with a major living kind. All the races of mankind, for example, came from just one original human pair. (Genesis 2:7, 22-24)
So it is nothing strange that those different species of finches would spring from a common ancestral species. But they did remain finches. They did not evolve into Hawks or eagles.
Neither the various species of flinches nor anything else Darwin saw proved that all living things, whether they be sharks or sea gulls, elephants or earthworms, have a common nevertheless, many scientists assert that evolution is no longer Just a theory but that it is a fact. Others, while recognizing the theory's problems, say that they believe it anyway. It is popular to do so. We , however, need to know whether evolution has been proved to such an extent that the Bible must be wrong.
Is it proved?
How can the theory of evolution be tested?
The most obvious way is to examine the fossil record to see if a gradual change from one kind to another really happened. Did it?
No , as a number of scientists honestly admit. One, Francis Hitching, writes: "When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there." So obvious is this lack of evidence in the fossil record that evolutionists have come up with alternatives to Darwin's theory of gradual change. The truth is, though, that the sudden appearance of animal kinds in the fossil record supports special creation much more than it does evolution.
Moreover, Hitching shows that living creatures are programmed to reproduce themselves exactly rather than evolve into something else. He says: "Living cells duplicate themselves with near total fidelity. The degree of error is so tiny that no man made machine can approach it. There are also built in constraints. Plants reach a certain size and refuse to grow any larger. Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised." Mutations induced by scientists in fruit flies over many decades failed to force these to evolve into something else.
The Origin of Life
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is: what was the origin of life?
How did the first simple form of life from which we are all supposed to have desended came into existence?
Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce mice. But , more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting life.
So how do evolutionists explain the source of life?
According to the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago.
What about the principle that Pasteur proved?
The world Book Encyclopedia explains: "Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today. Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions on the earth were far different"!
Even under far different conditions , though, there is a huge gap between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in crisis, says: " Between a living hell and the most highly ordered nonbiological system , such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a Chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive." The idea that nonliving material could come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be impossible. The Bible's explanation , that 'life came from life' in that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with facts.
Why Not Creation?
Despite the problems inherent in the theory of evolution, belief in creation is viewed today as unscientific , even eccentric. Why is this ? Why does even an authority such as Francis Hitching, who honestly points up the weaknesses of evolution , reject the idea of creation? Michael Denton explains that evolution, with all it's failings, will continue to be taught because theories releated to creation " invoke frankly supernatural causes."
In other words, the fact creation involves a Creator makes it unacceptable. Surely , this is the same kind of circular reasoning that we met up with in the case of miracles.