Click here for new Q & A section: Answers to Popular Questions on the Creation/evolution debate

Created or Designed?

Charles Darwin wrote in his famous book of 1859 "The Origin of Species" that,

"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. But I can find out no such case."

Darwin was writing in the days when scientific instruments were basic. The microscopes of the age would never have allowed us access to a great many wonders of the natural world which we know about today.

This is one; it is a real electric outboard motor which operates the tails of some kinds of bacteria so that they can move around. Do you believe that such a machine could have evolved by time, chance and natural processes?

I think that even Darwin would have to concede defeat right here, but we can demolish his Theory in many ways. Source of graphic.


The World's Most Amazing Information System

It wasn't until 1953, over a century after "The Origin of Species" was first published, that James Watson and Francis Crick identified the double-helix model of DNA. The human genome contains over three billion letters of information which build our incredibly complex bodies. Just move your hand around. Watch your fingers do as you direct them; they are linked to your brain; the blood vessels are in the right places for the heart to pump blood to. The hand is an amazing tool, far more ingenious than any manmade machine. It can be used to pound something to pieces or to create delicate caligraphy. Despite its incredible flexability and complex internal workings, many people assume that it evolved as opposed to us having a Creator who coded the information to create such a marvel of mechanics.

People tend to see design in things which have been made by other people, but have a blind spot where biological design is concerned. This has nothing to do with evidence or science, but with the conditioning we receive from childhood that we evolved. Yes, evolution is true, but as we will see, it is going the wrong way! Our genes are degenerating with every new generation which means that we could never have evolved from non-living chemicals over billions of years.


'Simple Cells?'

Darwin thought that living cells were just blobs. Powerful modern microscopes reveal them to be anything but 'simple'. They are so complex that you have to blow them up to the size of a large city to see what is going on. The picture cannot possibly come close to showing anything like the complexity involved.


Genetic Entropy and Population Genetics

Dr. John Sanford is a Cornell University geneticist who has discovered that the human genome is deteriorating due to damaging mutations and that these mutations are building up with each new generation, which explains the number of inherited diseases around today. He has calculated that natural selection does not reverse the process of degeneration and surmises that this is the major cause of the extinction of species (rather than simply environmental changes) and that the fitness of humans is deteriorating, which could be the reason for the massive increase in cancers, autism, Alzheimer's and so on.

If the human genome is deteriorating it means that people were once much fitter and less prone to disease, hence the increased life spans the further back in scripture we go and thus meaning that the Theory of Evolution cannot possibly be true.

Darwin's Greatest Worry?

He seemed to have a few. I have already written about one of them: that "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."

He wrote about the most serious objection to his theory. He imagined that there should be a 'truly enormous' number of intermediate links in the fossil record, but wrote:

"Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (The Origin of Species)

Darwin attributed this to the "extreme imperfection of the geological record" available in those days, but over 150 years later, the issue persists. The fossil record is considered to be complete, so we aren't suddenly going to find "every geoligical formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links." (The Origin of species).

The famous "Tree of Life" (there are many thousands of variations) has information at the tips and nodes with lines connecting the two to give the *illusion* that all living organisms are related. Those lines have not been derived from fossil or any other evidence, but from wishful thinking (for those who wish the Theory to be true).

Scientists are now rejecting the 'Tree of Life' and inventing new ideas about evolution, no doubt to be refuted in years to come, but they need to find something - anything - to keep the myth alive.

But Darwin had tremendous personal problems with his health with daily vomitting, shaking, anxiety and a host of other problems, perhaps due to spiritual issues after his rejection of the Creator.


What About 'Human Ancestors'?

As for the various so-called 'hominids' - human ancestors, they can be divided into creatures that were fully human or fully ape. In this field there has been much mischief made to try to fool people into believing that a handful of bones was our direct ancestor.

One of the greatest recent hoaxes/mistakes was the presentation of Ida the lemur in 2009. Evolutionists were celebrating that at last they had found a human 'missing link' which means that they didn't fully believe in all the other ones.

Months later, even Ida was written off, confirming yet again that the Theory of Evolution is a fraud and that only the Creator could have made Man in His image as scripture assures us.

It makes a huge difference whether we have Adam or ape in our ancestry.

If we are descended from ape-like ancestors there is no absolute morality, man can make up his own laws - and atheistic regimes like Stalin's and Mao's have been barbaric, killing tens of millions of their own people. Some people like the idea of atheism/evolution because they feel that it gives them leeway to do whatever they like and that they will not be held responsible to a higher power.

If Adam is our ancestor, we are created in the image of Almighty God, which means we have a lot more to live up to than swinging from trees doing as we please!

It also means that, as Adam's sin cursed the universe and brought death and suffering into the world, we need a Saviour to redeem us from this fallen state. To be redeemed we need to recognise that we are sinners and must repent and make a very serious effort to act like created people and not animals.

With repentence and faith in Christ we can have a glorious future, free from the curse. The Theory of Evolution is a dangerous lie and Charles Darwin has probably led more people to Hell than any other person. No wonder his mental state sounds horrific, but nothing compared to the torment in Hell.

It also has to be noted that political leaders aren't too keen on faith because they want the State to be seen as the source of power and authority.

As Lenin said, 'Our programme necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."

As the Psalmist said, 'I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.' (Psalm 139:14)

I feel quite positive that, were Darwin alive today, he would reject his own theory for the very reasons that he himself gave and in the light of the marvellous scientific discoveries made since his day.

This is Ida the lemur: admittedly not our ancestor.

Impossibilty of Life Forming by Naturalistic Means


Impossibilty of Life Forming by Naturalistic Means