Common Sense Answers to Evolution’s Claims
Claim #1: The earth is older than 6,000 years
Evolutionists claim that the earth is older than 6,000 years, concluding that the Bible must not be true. However, this argument has a couple of problems. First, evolutionists cherry-pick the dating methods that seem to support long ages. However, there are actually hundreds of dating methods that could be used to infer the age of the earth, and many contradict each other. A review of the these age indicators shows that approximately 90% of them give dates much too young to support evolution. For instance, if we date the earth based on the salt content in the sea, we get a maximum age of 62 million years (assuming there was no salt to begin with), much too young for evolution. But evolutionists pick a couple of methods from the hundreds of possible ones–methods that support their evolutionary timeline.
Second, the dating methods that they use are unreliable. For instance, when dating different areas of the same rock, we’ll get different ages. One time, scientists even dated rock from a recent documented volcanic lava flow, and they got dates of hundreds of thousands and even millions of years old! In another instance, scientists found supposedly 45-thousand-year-old wood encased in 45-million-year-old rock. In summary, these dating methods are just not reliable. Evolutionists have to assume a bunch of things that they’re not sure about to get the dates they do.
Claim #2: Similarities in animals show they have a common ancestor
Another claim evolutionists make is that animals share similarities, and so they must have a common ancestor. For instance, they say that reptiles are similar to each other and must have descended from a common ancestor, and in fact, all of life descended from a common ancestor. However, this logic has a major flaw: things can also be similar when they share a common Designer. For instance, some songs are similar because they have the same writer, not a common ancestor. Some books are similar because they have a common author, not a common ancestor. Some buildings are similar because they have a common architect, not a common ancestor. Animals share similarities because they have the same Designer, not a common ancestor.
A second problem with this argument is that some unusual similarities show up between animals that are supposedly related only distantly. For instance, the platypus has a duck-like bill, but the platypus and the duck are not very closely related in the evolutionary tree at all. This presents a peculiar problem for evolutionists: why would a duck-like bill evolve twice independently? Of course, this is no problem to explain from a Christian viewpoint, but it is very difficult to explain from an evolutionary one.
Claim #3: Animals change (like Darwin’s finches). Given enough time, they can change into completely different animals.
Another claim that evolutionists make is that we observe animals changing (slightly) today. Given enough time, these slight changes would turn into very large changes, able to turn a fish into a kangaroo, for example. The major problem with this logic, however, is that nearly all the changes we observe are adjustments of built-in settings. Nothing new is added that was not possible before. Because of this, the changes that we see today have very clear, definite limits.
For instance, kitchen ovens have many built-in settings. You can adjust the temperature, choose between different types of baking, or rearrange the shelves. However, simply adjusting these settings could never turn a kitchen oven into a space shuttle. To do that, you would need brand new parts. Likewise, animals have built-in genetic settings, and each animal receives a random combination of settings from its mother and father. Some birds have slightly larger beaks than others, based on the random “settings” inherited from the parents. But changing settings, like beak size, could never turn a bird into another type of animal, like a kangaroo. For changes like this, we would need brand new genetic code.
Informed evolutionists actually agree with this. They realize that brand new genetic code doesn’t come from adjusting built-in settings, and so when they use this argument, they are being deceptive. What they actually believe causes brand new information is mutations (mistakes) and natural selection. But we most commonly associate mutations with cancer, disease, old age, and genetic disorders. In short, mutations cause death and destruction, not newer and better animals, and so this argument doesn’t make much sense, either. A much better explanation is that God created the world perfectly to begin with, and because of sin and the curse, mutations are destroying our genetic code.
Claim #4: Some germs evolve resistance to antibiotics
Evolutionists also claim that some germs have evolved resistance to antibiotics. What they do not tell you, however, is that the germs are destroying part of themselves in a desperate attempt to survive the would-be antibiotic attackers. This is similar to citizens in a city who burn their own bridge in a desperate attempt to keep an invading enemy from crossing the river and conquering the city. This is not evolution at all–in fact, it is the direct opposite–devolution. It happens to help the germs survive the attacking antibiotics, but only by destroying part of themselves in the process. Evolution, on the other hand, is supposed to create new things, not destroy them.
Evolutionists claim that the Bible is not true and that evolution is a fact. However, when we examine the evidence, we find that it does not make sense. Sadly, however, people continue to believe in evolution because it provides what they believe to be the best excuse for ignoring their responsibility to their Creator, Jesus Christ, allowing them to rationalize a lifestyle of sin. The Bible tells us that judgment is coming. Are you ready?