Why I Stopped Believing in Evolution as a Theory of Origins

My high school biology textbook taught the theory of evolution as a proven fact. I had no reason to doubt it. Like millions of unsuspecting students, I assumed that "science" had established its validity beyond question. So, when I became a Christian, I did my best to harmonize my education with what was in the Bible. I supposed that God could have created over millions of years through some kind of evolutionary process. 

But one day, a young man shared with me a video discussing this very subject. In it, Ken Ham from the ministry Answers in Genesis said something that challenged what I believed. He quoted the Apostle Paul.

According to the Bible, death came because of Adam's sin. (Genesis 3:16-17) Before sin entered the world, there was no death. Therefore, there could not have been millions of years of evolutionary death and suffering prior to the sin of Adam. 

Ken's declaration rocked my world. I claimed to be a Christian and believe the Bible, but in the matter of evolution, I was taking man's word over God's Word. I had a choice to make: either to believe the Bible or to believe in millions of years. I could no longer have it both ways. I chose God's Word, but that didn't mean I didn't have a million questions.

Burning questions are a good thing because they drive us to seek answers. The more I studied, the more I learned the Bible was true. The more I learned, the more I recognized that some of what Darwin observed is indeed excellent science. But his theory on the origin of species is a highly speculative, replacement creation story, conveniently believed by those who don't want there to be a God with high moral standards. 

The following article deals with only a few of the many reasons Darwin's theory of origins does not hold up to scrutiny. But first, let's look at the Bible's record of creation.

The Bible's Account of Creation

The Bible has the only account of creation from Someone who was there. The Creator made sure we knew the truth about earth's creation despite the historically recent claims of evolution.

Genesis 1:1-2:7, Psalm 33:6, 104:24-30, Proverbs 3:19-20, Isaiah 42:5, John 1:3-4, Acts 14:15, 17:24-30, Revelation 4:6-8

If biblical creation were a theory, it would predict that God would create a planet with physical characteristics finely tuned to support life. We live on such a planet in a prime location in our solar system and galaxy.

Then, it would suggest that an intelligent God would create beautifully suited designs for all creatures. His creation would also include harmoniously integrated ecosystems of plants and animals. We see that all around us.

The Bible's creation narrative tells us that plants and animals would reproduce according to their individual kinds. This meant genetic variation could occur within their rich gene pools, but they would not change from one species into another. Genesis 1:12, 21, 25 

We might also suspect that God would leave His signature somewhere on His workmanship.

The Signature of God in Creation

Little did Darwin anticipate that those who came after him would discover a highly sophisticated coding language present in every living cell.

We call this language DNA, and it made what Darwin thought were "simple" organisms not so simple anymore.

A complex world of molecular machines programmed by a master DNA molecule exists inside all living cells. 

Similar to a computer's operating system, this DNA code is the signature of God written into and governing all of life.

Operating systems are the products of intelligent programmers, never of random events, as evolution theory suggests.

Because living cells are so complicated, they could not have arisen by chance from some lifeless, prehistoric chemical soup. 

But What Does Evolution Say?

Contrast God's careful design in creation with the philosophy trying to replace it. Evolution theorizes that the intricate, intelligent, awe-inspiring work of God resulted from a molecular accident. Romans 1:20-21

On one hand, the Bible declares God lovingly created man in His image, but the theory of evolution views man as the product of an unlikely collision of chemicals. Genesis 1:26-28

Such a view robs life of meaning, value, and dignity, but what you believe about yourself is your choice. 

Are you made in the image of God with a divine destiny and purpose? Or are you the offspring of pond water, amoebas, and monkeys, living a life with no intrinsic meaning?

The philosophy of evolution removes the value in every life. It initially supposed that various races evolved along different evolutionary pathways and that some were inferior to others. As a result, it produced racism and eugenics. Hitler based his genocide of the Jews on the idea of breeding a super race according to Darwin's theory. 

Other by-products of this godless theory are abortion, euthanasia, Marxism, and communist dictatorships. The latter have murdered tens of millions of their citizens with no regard for their lives. 

In stark contrast, the Bible teaches that every life has value, meaning, and purpose (Psalm 139:13-16, Genesis 1:26-27, Psalm 127:3, Genesis 9:6, Jeremiah 1:5, Matthew 6:26, 10:31). It has declared from the beginning that human beings came from the same original parents and are of one  blood and one race. Acts 17:26, Genesis 9:18-19

Different skin tones and eye shapes reflect slight genetic variability within the human species but don't prove a different evolutionary path. The study of the human genome suggests there is but one human race. We all have the same kind of DNA. The idea of "races" is an evolutionary myth that has produced unbelievable suffering. We are all related regardless of any perceived external differences.

God does not show partiality to any ethnic group, for He values us equally. His Word describes all nations, tribes, peoples, and languages worshiping together before His throne. Revelation 7:9-10, Romans 2:11, 1 Peter 1:17 

In Christ, there is no distinction of gender, race, ethnic origin, or economic status. Galatians 3:28

The Two Main Reasons the Theory of Evolution Falls Short of Explaining the Origins of Life.

(1) Life does not come from non-life.

The probability of spontaneously generating a DNA molecule (or an RNA molecule) from some primordial chemical soup is so astronomically high as to be nil.

But someone might say, “There’s still a chance.” Yes, there’s also a chance you can win big on the roulette wheel at 1 chance in 38. These are certainly more favorable odds than spontaneous generation, but are you willing to bet your paycheck or your house?

Would you gamble your just-paid-off car on a coin toss? (At 1 in 2, those are the best odds in the universe.)

I’m not willing to bet my eternal life on an improbable theory, no matter how many people say they believe it. It’s easier to believe in God than in spontaneous generation (abiogenesis).

An honest person observing the panorama of creation will sense that life is too rich, complex, and well-designed to be the product of chance. Psalm 19:1-3, Isaiah 40:21-23, 25-26, Romans 1:20-21

Darwin was prophetic in admitting the weakness in his theory:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." —Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species

In his time, Darwin was unaware of the irreducible complexity in individual cells, let alone in such complex organs as the eye. The discovery of the fascinating biochemical machinery inside the simplest one-celled organism has broken down the origins portion of his theory.

However, to his credit, Darwin brilliantly observed genetic variability within a species and the role of natural selection, which is his enduring contribution to science.

Some scientists attempted to create life in a test tube, so to speak. In these non-random, carefully designed and controlled experiments (in the absence of oxygen), a few amino acids formed. But that is a galaxy away from a fully functioning bacterium.

Click here for insight into mankind's failed attempts to produce life in a controlled laboratory environment.

(2) No mechanism, such as mutation or genetic variation, can add the volume of new, orderly, complex information to an organism's existing DNA to transform it into a new and viable species.

Species are what they are because of the DNA that regulates them.

Even if it were possible for one species to evolve into another, substantial amounts of well-designed, non-conflicting, new DNA code must be added to the existing DNA code of the parent organism to produce something new.

We've all seen artists' renderings of hunched-over apes standing more and more erect until they become men. But do you realize that each step of evolutionary change must first take place in the organism's DNA?

To prove molecules-to-man evolution, scientists need more than artists. They must discover a mechanism vastly superior to mutations and genetic variation that can add quantum leaps of new, viable genetic information to existing DNA. 

However, this mechanism has not been found because it does not exist.

When God placed DNA into living things, He programmed them to copy their existing DNA exactly and pass it on to the next generation. 

This copying process is so accurate that natural mutations, though they happen, are infrequent.

God Created Living Things to Reproduce "According to Their Kind"

Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

The plants and trees God created yielded seed "according to their kind." They reproduced according to their specific DNA, true to their family and species.

Each individual kind will show small-scale variation according to the richness of the gene pool God gave it. This microevolution is then subjected to natural selection. Darwin famously recorded the changes in finch bills. But slight variation does not explain the large-scale change—macroevolution—of one species morphing into another.

Darwin's finches never changed into seagulls. A peach tree does not become a tumbleweed. Acorns don't produce orange trees. The principle of reproduction according to kind is the same for sea creatures, birds, earth animals, and humans. Genesis 1:12, 21, 25

Mutation and genetic variation do explain variation within a species. However, they cannot produce the millions of bits of well-coded, purposeful new information required to change one species into another.

Contrary to the popular idea that the genetic codes of humans and chimpanzees are nearly identical, they are only 89% similar.

They differ in 330 million DNA letters. https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/dna-similarities/differences-between-chimp-and-human-dna-recalculated/

If man supposedly developed from a chimpanzee, where did the 330 million new DNA letters come from? Mutations are not the answer, and here's why.

The Problem with Mutations

The mutations that occur in nature are (1) rare, not happening frequently enough to drive evolution, (2) random, (3) seldom beneficial, and (4) usually harmful or lethal to the organism.

https://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-10a.htm
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/

The proponents of molecules-to-man evolution have discovered an enormous amount about genetics since the days of Charles Darwin. Some of what they have learned will probably benefit humanity. 

However, they have not revealed a mechanism on the DNA level capable of driving an evolutionary process that produces what we see around us.

The Huge Problem with Evolutionary Flux

But let's talk hypothetically for a moment. Suppose there were such a random, unintelligent mechanism that kept all living things in a state of macroevolutionary flux. If it produced large-scale changes that proved effective when selected by the environment, the organism would flourish for a season. 

But the evolutionary flux would not stop because of success. Being a part of life itself, it would continue to impose random changes, even to successful organisms, that would just as easily undo or thwart those improvements. Evolutionary damage could come as easily as evolutionary progress. 

For evolution to work, the accidental products of evolutionary change would have to be overwhelmingly beneficial. But science has never observed that. 

If such an evolutionary process were in place, your grandkids could be born with fins instead of hands, eyes on the back of their heads, or an elbow or knee that bent the wrong way.

Fortunately, we do not see evidence of macroevolution in the creation around us! With the exception of slight variations and occasional mutations, the life forms we observe are stable. Everything reproduces according to its kind, just as God's Word said.

Why Time Is Not the Hero of Evolution Theory

People suppose that, given enough time, evolution could take place. But time is not the hero of the evolutionary process. 

Here's what I mean.

The alleged four billion years of evolution is 1.26 x 10¹⁷ seconds. That's a generous number since most evolutionists believe the original one-celled organism appeared a half a billion years later.

J. Huxley estimated it took 10³⁰⁰⁰ evolutionary steps to produce a modern horse from the original one-celled organism. Each distinct evolutionary step represents the addition of well-coded, beneficial DNA to the existing DNA of the organism that gives it an environmental advantage.

The mechanism that would add such complex coding has not been discovered, but let's assume it was there and worked consistently and systematically.

Suppose we divide the number of alleged evolutionary steps by the number of seconds in four billion years. That would tell us the average speed of evolution in steps per second.

If Huxley was correct, the following gigantic number is how many evolutionary steps must take place on average every second for 4 billion years to produce a horse—7.9 x 10²⁹⁸². It's in the gazillions of changes per second! 

This rate of evolutionary change exceeds by far the speed of cell division, mutations, and sexual reproduction, which all severely limit the speed of evolution. This extremely rapid rate of change would be observable in the laboratory. The fact it can't be confirmed calls into question the theory itself.

Even if we cut Huxley's number in half or more, the proposed speed of evolution far exceeds what is biologically possible. 

Now, this evolutionary process must simultaneously be working to produce the roughly 1.6 million life forms observed on earth, not just the horse.

Again, it’s easier to believe that God created each living thing than to believe they evolved by accident without a designer. 

Everyone who believes in evolution must be willing to confront their doubts. Even over billions of years, the story doesn't add up. 

Similarity of Design Points to Divine Creation

The similarity of design between animals points to a common Designer.

As an artist, Picasso had a Blue Period in which he painted multiple pictures in shades of blue.

Like an artist in many ways, God repeated His designs in more than one creature simply because they worked well for their intended purpose. For example, animal legs are similar though not identical.

The Problem of Theistic Evolution

In an attempt to avoid the conflict between the unchanging Bible and man's ever-changing knowledge, some Christians have tried to harmonize the seven days of creation with the millions of years theorized by science. 

Theistic evolution, as it's called, or the Day-Age theory, starts with the Scripture, "A day with the Lord is as a thousand years." 2 Peter 3:8, Psalm 90:4 Then it assumes the word "day" might mean an age of millions of years.

For an insightful look at the problems created by this theory, click here.

Summary

The complexity, beauty, and efficiency of God's creation are head and shoulders above the accidental products of chance random processes.

For example, wind, rain, snow, and ice have shaped mountains worldwide since the beginning, but they have never produced a Mount Rushmore. That required an intelligent artist.

It's the same with humans and other living things. We have the signature of an intelligent God in each of our cells. You are not the result of a chance accident but of a well-designed loving plan. 

In conclusion, molecules-to-man evolution is a poor replacement for the real creation story recorded in the Bible. 

For excellent scientific information about creation and evolution, I highly recommend the following website.

https://answersingenesis.org/evolution/