The theory of evolution proposes that given sufficient time, and a suitable environment,
the chances for the right combination of chemicals to come together to produce life
will eventually happen and a simple cell will be formed.
When Darwin theorised that one species evolved from another, microscopes were very
rudimentary and there was a very poor understanding of life. It was believed that
an amoeba was a very simple single celled creature and more complex forms evolved
as additional complexity was added to the cell by chance mutations.
DNA or Deoxyribonucleic acid is the complex molecule that contains the genetic instructions
used in the development and functioning of all living organisms. With the advent
of electron microscopes we can now examine the structure of cells in a much greater
level of detail.
A so-called simple cell is far from simple. It may only contain basic elements such
as hydrogen and carbon, but the DNA is highly complex, even in the case of a simple
amoeba. The internal structure and machinery to move, repair and replicate is far
from simple. It cannot have come about by chance. The structure of a cell of a complex
being like a human is indeed more complex than an amoeba, but the amoeba still contains
thousands of complex parts and elements of information. To get from simple chemicals
in a primeval soup to the lowest form of life involves combining these elements into
amazingly complex chains arranged in a specific order. Even with the most generous
assumptions and most favourable conditions, the likelihood of any kind of life emerging
by chance is astronomically improbable, like picking one particular atom from all
the atoms in the universe. The faith required to believe that could happen by chance
far exceeds that required to accept the existence of a designer and creator.
It has also been argued that there may have been insufficient time in the history
of the earth for life to have evolved by chance. There is a related theory that supposedly
gives evolution a jump start, which is that life came to earth from another galaxy.
But this does not really help anything because life would have to have evolved to
that level in that other galaxy, so the arguments are exactly the same.
Faith to believe in the God of Creation is expressed in the words of the writer of
the book of Hebrews ‘Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence
of things not seen. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the
word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear’
A species is defined by the architecture encoded in its DNA. Creatures develop, reproduce
and repair according to the DNA information. Information in the DNA remains the same
from generation to generation, or it may be lost, but no new information is ever
added. So-called survival of the fittest or changes of colour to adapt to the environment
are only according to existing blueprints. These types of change have been used as
evidence of evolution, but they are no such thing. They are simply variations according
to an existing architecture.
So on that basis, no creature can evolve into a higher order. No amount of time can
make this happen. In fact according to the law of entropy, it works the other way.
Time leads to decay and chaos rather than order and increased information.
The enormous variety of species we see in the world today is a result of adaptation.
Let us say that God created a deer, male and female. Today we can see many different
species of deer due to adaptation to different environments. The variation within
the genetic code would allow for adaptation without gaining of any new DNA material.
Examples, like the peppered moth have been used to supposedly illustrate evolution1.
Light coloured moths survive in lighter areas, whereas darker moths develop in darker
industrial areas. The facts are that the aptitude to take on a certain colour is
present in both types, but the lighter ones get picked off by birds in dark areas
and conversely. The DNA is still the same. They are still the same species. Many
such examples of adaptation can be cited, but none of them show the addition of genetic
The DNA does not change during the life of an individual. The only opportunity to
change the DNA is during reproduction. This could potentially happen due to an error
during copying of DNA or random rearrangement of small elements of DNA in a chromosome
pair. Evolution theory relies on the possibility that such an error is advantageous.
Such errors are far more likely to be disadvantageous anyway, but how does the organism
know the error is advantageous? This would not be evident until the organism has
matured. The whole thing rings of improbability to the highest degree.
The definition of species is based on the ability of a group of creatures to interbreed.
The loss of sufficient DNA material from many generations would gradually lead to
the inability to interbreed. So, for example, the oft-quoted example of Darwin’s
finches can be explained by loss rather than gaining of DNA. It has been shown that
types of finches can change over a period of something like 20 generations by adaptation
to the point that a new species is formed. For example, the beaks get longer or shorter,
depending on the environment and the need for catching food2. Eventually the divergence
is such that they can no longer interbreed and a new species is formed. However,
this does not require new additional genetic code, but rather is the result of the
loss of it.
My proposition here is that evolution of new species is an example of entropy and
disorder rather than advantageous mutation as the evolution theory maintains. Given
a pure species of, say a deer, thousands of generations have led to many different
varieties in the direction of entropy and chaos. So the variety of species we see
in the world today is easily explained as the result of entropy due to time. God
created perfect specimens of every type of creature, which were given a perfect DNA
code. All that time has done is to lose some of the code due to copying errors during
reproduction or cellular damage, for example due to radiation. Thus evolution does
not explain the origin of life. It can only explain some of the diversity. Life was
created in its perfection and has been gradually decaying ever since.
Thus a toad could evolve into a different type of toad, adapted to different environments,
but it will never become a bird or a rabbit or anything other than a toad. The original
toad as created by God, had all the genetic attributes to adapt to many situations,
some of which may have been lost through lack of use or requirement, but it will
never be anything but a toad. It may become inferior to the original blueprint, but
it will never develop wings or fur.
Man is able now with modern technology to change and manipulate genes, taking the
genetic material from an egg or cell and injecting it into another type of egg, but
this is done by design, with intelligence, skill and very advanced processes. This
is very different from something happening by blind chance. In fact, our ability
to perform genetic modification supports the view that there is great intelligence
behind changes to DNA rather than changes happening of their own accord.
In very recent years, new discoveries in the field of evolution appear to indicate
that all of the genetic material is present in almost all species. Scientist have
discovered an apparently ‘missing link’ creature which lies somewhere between fish
and animals, which they named Tiktaalik. In examination of its DNA, they declared,
‘It turns out that the genetic machinery needed to make limbs was already present
in the fins. It did not involve the origin of new genes and developmental processes.
It involved the redeployment of old genetic recipes in new ways’3. The research would
appear to indicate that DNA does not evolve, but rather genetic switches go on and
off during the process of growing in order to produce a certain type of creature.
So, for example a giraffe has a long neck because the neck-growing switch remains
on longer than other mammals. Mice and elephants have the same basic DNA structure,
with a different set of gene switches. It has been claimed by people like David Attenborough
that man is related to chimpanzee because the genes are so similar, that we have
clearly evolved from the same family tree. However, I would argue that the Creator,
having developed a blueprint for animals would very likely use the same method to
produce one animal as another. This does not prove man evolved from the chimpanzee,
but rather that we have the same creator. ‘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’ (Genesis 1:25) In other words, the DNA is not evolving, as it was
all created at the very beginning. Man has the same number (around 21,000) and similar
type of genes as a mouse. No new material is being generated. If anything, there
may be loss of information due to entropy, but no new information is being added.
These recent discoveries if anything are even greater proof of creation. There is
no way that mammals and man in particular could possibly have evolved from amoeba.4
Why is the creation versus evolution discussion so important?
If you consider the data and evidence as seen the whole of creation, it points to
one conclusion: it was designed. If you begin with the false premise that there is
not, and cannot be a Creator, then all of the evidence must be distorted and selected
to prove and maintain that belief.
If it is possible to rule out the requirement for a Creator, then man has no accountability
to anyone other than himself as man is viewed as the highest order of animal. In
this case there is no such thing as sin. Merely what is the current view of morality
or expediency is all that matters. Belief and morality become relative and convenient.
Thus issues like abortion and euthanasia become matters of convenience rather than
immutable laws. The Biblical 10 Commandments instead of being regarded as mandatory,
to be accepted and obeyed without question, become relegated to personal opinions
or at best good suggestions. Whilst avoiding the risk of being caught breaking the
laws of the country, a person can do whatever they like. The Christian view, that
God is watching and judging us even when we are alone, is not relevant. Obeying God’s
laws are a matter of the heart and motive, not just about visible and external actions.
Without God, I just need to be seen to comply with society’s codes, culture and ethics.
What goes on in private, what is not seen or what is in the mind and heart is not
relevant. Jesus challenges us to control what is in our minds, as being of greater
importance than external actions. Thus He puts lust on a par with adultery (Matt
5:28) and hatred as equivalent to murder and that we are to love our enemies (Matt
5:44). If all that matters is survival of the fittest, then lust, aggression and
hatred may even be seen as desirable attributes, rather than sin.
A fundamental question we all need to address is whether we believe the whole of
life is series of meaningless chance chemical and physical reactions or whether there
is design and purpose. If the former, then it matters not what I do in life other
than to survive and make the best of everything for myself and not get caught breaking
the institutional rules. In fact, life has no meaning or purpose and the individual
is an irrelevance in the cosmos.
If there is design and purpose, then I am more important and of greater value than
the stars, but I am also personally accountable to God for every action, word and
thought. The stars and planets will one day be subject to the law of entropy, subject
to decay and death, but you and I will live eternally.