How can Evolution be True?

I don’t normally like to take issues head on, but this one has been on my mind lately. I’m editing a video lecture by Dr. Robert Carter of Creation Ministries International, and along the way listening to his material I got to think….

What does nature say?

Popular opinion today is “We may not know how evolution works, but it has to somehow.” Granted, this opinion is most prevalent in English speaking cultures. Where did the idea come from? Well, you learned about evolution from your school, most likely. Do you believe everything your school taught you?

The schools got it from various committees. The committees got it from various academic publishers. The publishers got it from universities, and the universities got it from outspoken professional scientists.

Where did the scientists get it? Have you ever wondered if there are fossils showing transitional stages of life forms? Have you ever asked yourself if their dating methods are scientifically proved to be accurate? Have you though they just might be some wholes in the evolutionary theory?

I call it a theory because that is what it is. Many are taught today the evolution has been scientifically proven as factual, but on the other hand there is no undeniable evidence the evolutionists can provide. In fact, they have very little to back up the theory except for Charles Darwin’s writings. What backs up Charles Darwin? Not much. In fact, all of his theories—which they were, since he was not a scientist that could test his theories—have been proven scientifically wrong.

This is not just my opinion. There are many scientists today that disagree with evolution, yet we still push it off as truth to the ignorant masses. Why do we teach evolution publicly when we know there are holes in it? Because “We don’t have any better theories.” That is what many scientists have been willing to admit.

So with no evidence proving it is true, and given all the other possibilities out there that could explain the processes of nature, why do we—the people—still believe it?

There is one credible theory out there: creation. Granted, creation explains how the world came about. Creation does not altogether explain the natural processes we now witness in the physical world, but the physical world does reflect what you would expect to find as physical evidence of creation if the universe is indeed young as creationists’ position claims.

If you are interested in more information, I recommend you check out the following:


7 thoughts on “How can Evolution be True?

  1. As a matter of fact, scientists don’t create “Laws” anymore, due to the fact that many of them are proven wrong in the future. As for evidence, scientists have sequenced DNA of many different species and compared them, showing patterns of similarity between some species more than others. At this point, I would imagine that you would say, “Well, how do you know DNA exists? What if it’s all a lie?” You might as well ask why other live beings exist in the universe, and how to disprove the current belief of their existence. Evolution may be just a theory, but a very likely one indeed. For example, it is widely believed that dogs evolved from wolves, and significant amounts of evidence back the theory up. Dogs share similar mitochondrial DNA with those of wolves. Also, the two can be bred together. However, the two species also have large differences. Dogs are belived to evolve into wolves, because in the past, humans selectively bred wolves from the wild, and allowed only certain wolves to breed. This selection was caused by the fact that if wolves attacked those humans, the humans’ initial reactions would be to defend themselves by killing the wolf, or sending it away. Either way, the humans wouldn’t keep the wolf long enough for it to have babies (assuming the humans eventually chose to try taming at least one male and one female wolf). The pups of a chosen wolf would carry traits similar to it, so tameness was passed down from one generation to the next. After thousands of years, the wolf was domesticated to be a dog. Dogs have traits similar to wolf pups, like licking their elderly (or masters, in the case of humans) and acting playful. A possible explanation dogs have traits similar to wolf pups may be that wolf pups are more submissive than wolf adults, and it was to their genetical advantage to have submissive traits, so that they wouldn’t be kicked out or killed by their masters. It is very difficult to explain how all of it could just be a giant coincidence, and the “theory” explains it nicely. For that reason and others like it, the evolution theory is widely accepted as true. But, who knows if in another theory explains the situation better than evolution? In my opinion, it is the best theory as of now, because it is less likely if a guy just decided to suddenly make things appear out of nowhere, as if everything is made of magic. Hope that helps explain things at least a little better.

    Here and now, I end my rant.

    -Erick, high-schooler from LASA

  2. A couple points you have, Erick I’d like to touch upon.

    The matter of ‘evolved’ species, such as wolves/dogs you mention, is not a new example. In fact, it has aptly been answered by many scientists. Here’s an exert from a popular scientific journal I got from that addresses this approach to evolution:

    Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.’ These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a ‘micro’ increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off.

    This is not the only matter to consider—by far. I reckon we both could exhaust the individual examples we see that we perceive to be creation or evolution around us. One more thing I’d like to note…

    Erick said: “In my opinion, it is the best theory as of now, because it is less likely if a guy just decided to suddenly make things appear out of nowhere, as if everything is made of magic.”

    Well, how then do you explain where everything came from? What evolution pitches is that everything came from a tiny spec that contained all matter, and one day it “blew up” into the universe and over billions of years…. Now, I ask, where did the spec come from? What put it there? Just before the spec came into existence, what was there? See, creationists believe an Intelligent Being beyond the constrains of time and natural laws was all there was first, then He made matter. Evolution believes there was a spec beyond the constrains of time and natural laws was here first. The evolution scenario is no different. Something made everything but it itself had no creator—it came from nothing.

    Also, note the spec had no intellect. Where did intelligent thought originate with evolution? Science proves nothing comes from nothing.

    Thanks for your input, Erick. I appreciate your thoughts. It’s good to think about these things.

  3. How do you know an “Intelligent Being” exists? And how do you know that the theoretical being that created everything, was intelligent? After all, it could have been an accident. Thus being said, people could believe in an “Ignorant Being” that created everything, and have an equal amount of evidence for that theory.

  4. Sorry I haven’t responded sooner. I overlooked your response.

    I appreciate your open-mindedness. Considering the infinite possibilities is something I do often. In turn, considering the proof we have for any theory or religious perspective reminds me that choosing any position requires a great deal of faith on the part of any individual. Simply put, everyone that chooses to believe in anything he cannot see (this includes atheists, agnostics and evolutionists) takes a great deal of faith.

    The difference in an all-powerful intelligent creator and the creation we see around us is the creation is not all powerful. The universe needs an explanation, but an all-powerful being doesn’t really need one. Since God created time and matter itself, and before He did so there was no such thing as a beginning or end (which the Bible tells us), then it’s not hard to see that God doesn’t need an explanation for where He came from.

    Another aspect to consider is the Bible says man is an eternal being (mankind as a whole). Other than God and the angels there doesn’t seem to be any other creatures that will exist eternally. If you and I will live from the time of our conception into infinity, and we don’t need to explain why there will never be an end to our existence… then the same is true for other eternal beings like God. He won’t have an end, and we don’t need to explain why. And if you can live with this fact, then it isn’t so hard to believe an eternal being—the Original before there was anything else and He was all-powerful—could have existed infinitely in that past. If He can exist infinitely for the future, why not for the past also?

  5. I think we all fail when we refuse to see anything but rigid binaries (either God created everything, or there is no God and evolution is resonsible for life). It seems plausible that God may have used evolutionary tactics to orchestrate the creation of the Earth, animals, and humans. The seven-day creation period outlined in the Bible should be read as allegorical – true, in that God was the “man [or woman] at the helm,” but allegorical, in that the fundamental idea of creation is communicated through an easy-to-understand example.

    It would serve evangelicals well to abandon their war on science. Science and religion can coexist if people are willing to loosen their interpretation of the Bible. We must remember that the Bible was written during an ancient time period for a specific group of people. It would logically follow then that many aspects of it simply cannot apply to our modern world.
    It can still be the most important book, but it can be understood to be a guidebook, or blueprint, for how to live a good and noble life.

  6. It seems plausible that God may have used evolutionary tactics to orchestrate the creation of the Earth, animals, and humans.

    Depends on where you’re coming from—personally, it doesn’t seem plausible since evolution’s theories are proven scientifically false. But not to knock you down, even if it is plausible, it’s not with a correct understand (not interpretation) of the Bible. The Bible itself is subject to interpretation, but the accounts of creation in it are not. You know that a poem is meant to be interpreted by its readers. Well, there is poetry in the Bible as well, but just like you know that a history book is meant to be understood as fact—not fictional or metaphorical—the accounts of creation in the Bible come from history books. Nothing in the book of Genesis is subject to interpretation if it is taken literally for what it says.

    It would serve evangelicals well to abandon their war on science….

    I would agree with most of what you say in your second paragraph… if I’m interpreting you correctly. ;-) Unfortunately, I think we have different views of the Bible. I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God to mankind. It itself makes the case every word of it is applicable to mankind from the time it was written to the present day. Obviously, it takes a great deal of wisdom to apply parts of the Bible, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be or shouldn’t be done.

    I will add that the Bible is clearly not meant to be exhaustive. There are issues it does not cover. You are right in that it is primarily a guide book on how mankind should live. Along the way, the Bible gives just enough explanation to make the case it is how you should live. And most of what it exhorts us to do is live by broad principles rather than clearly defined rules and strict laws (but there are some in the Bible).

Comments are closed.