Downloads »

How Evolution Flunked Science - Part 2

Scripture: Genesis 1:25, Genesis 7:11-12
Evolutionary theory has failed the scientific test in many areas, including natural selection and mutation. The Bible teaches that animals reproduce "after their kind." The idea that humans evolved from other species does not hold to be scientifically solid.
NOTE: If you have a Bible question for Pastor Doug Batchelor or the Amazing Facts Bible answer team, please submit it by clicking here. Due to staff size, we are unable to answer Bible questions posted in the comments.

To ensure a Christian environment, all comments are strictly moderated.

  1. Be patient! We strive to approve comments the day they are made, but please allow at least 24 hours for your comment to appear. Comments made on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday may not appear until the following Monday.

  2. Un-Christlike comments—name calling, profanity, harassment, ridicule, etc.— will be automatically deleted and the user permanently banned.

  3. Comments containing URLs outside the family of Amazing Facts websites and email addresses will be deleted.

  4. Comments off topic to the article or video may be deleted.

Please note: Approved comments do not constitute an endorsement by the ministry of Amazing Facts or Pastor Doug Batchelor. This website allows dissenting comments and beliefs, but our comment sections are not a forum for ongoing debate. Please be civil to one another.




Professor G. G. Simpson, one of the elite spokesmen for evolution, writes about multiple, simultaneous mutations and reports that the mathematical likelihood of getting good evolutionary results would occur only once in 274 billion years! And that would be assuming 100 million individuals are reproducing a new generation Every Day! He concludes by saying, "Obviously, such a process has played no part whatever in evolution." The Major Features of Evolution, page 7.

Does this sound sort of confusing to you? They say mutation is necessary to make the changes required by their theory, yet they have to confess that it is scientifically impossible for mutation to make the changes. This is too typical of the puzzling twists and turns made by our evolutionist friends in their efforts to uphold an exploded theory. So the second point of contradiction with true science has been established.

Mutations, of course, do affect minor changes within the basic kinds, but those changes are limited, never producing a new family. They can explain many of the varieties of both plant and animals, but can never explain the creation of basic kinds as required by evolution.

Since we have discovered that the fossil record gives no support to the idea of species gradually changing into other species, let us see if fossil evidence is in harmony with the Bible. Ten times in the book of Genesis we read God's decree concerning the reproduction of His creatures "after its kind." The word "kind" refers to species, or families. Each created family was to produce only its own kind. This forever precludes the drifting, changing process required by organic evolution where one species turns into another.

Take note that God did not say there could be no changes within the family. He did not create all the varieties of dogs, cats, other animals, etc., in the very beginning. There was only a male and female of each species, and many changes have since occurred to produce a wide assortment of varieties within the family. But, please keep it straight in your mind that cats have always remained cats, dogs are still dogs, and men are still men. Mutation has only been responsible for producing a new variety of the same species, but never originating another new kind. Selective breeding has also brought tremendous improvements such as hornless cattle, white turkeys, and seedless oranges; but, all the organisms continue to reproduce exactly as God decreed at creation, "after its kind."

The "common ancestor" that evolution demands has never existed. He is not a "missing link." He is a link who never was. Man and monkeys are supposed to stem from the same animal ancestry. Even chimpanzees and many monkey groups vary tremendously. Some are smart, others dumb. Some have short tails and some long. Some have no tails at all. Their teeth vary in number. A few have thumbs and others do not. Their genes are different. Their chromosomes do not jibe. Interestingly enough, apes only breed with apes, chimpanzees with chimpanzees, and monkeys with monkeys.

But when we start comparing humans with monkeys we get even more impossible differences than those between the simian types. In fact, these differences constitute another unanswerable support for the Bible rule of "after its kind." The fact that some monkeys can be trained to smoke a pipe, ride a scooter, or even hoist a test tube in a laboratory does not prove that scientists are evolved animals, or that monkeys are retarded, developing humans.

It has already been stated that evolutionists expected the fossil record to support their theory of species change. Their doctrine demanded vast numbers of scaly reptiles transforming the scales into feathers and their front feet into wings. Other reptiles, supposedly, should be changing into fur-bearing quadrupeds. Did they find those thousands of multi-changing creatures? Not one! No matter what particular strata they sifted through, all the fossils were easily recognized and classified within its own family, just as God decreed. If the evolutionary doctrine were true, the strata would be teeming with hundreds of millions of transition forms with combination features of two or more species. Not only so, but there would have to be millions upon millions of observable living links right now in the process of turning into a higher form. Darwin confessed: "There are two or three million species on earth. A sufficient field one might think for observation; but it must be said today that in spite of all the evidence of trained observers, not one change of the species to another is on record." Life and Letters, Volume 3, page 25.

How interesting! Then why insist that it had to be that way? This is one of the marvels of those who cling to a traditional theory. Even the most ancient fossil forms in the lowest fossil beds have stubbornly retained the same features of their modern counterparts, and it is amusing to listen to the exclamations of surprise by the evolutionists. The creationist is not surprised at all. His Bible told him it would be that way, and he has not been forced to puzzle over contradictory evidence.

Another frustration for the poor evolutionists is the strange case of the empty strata. Let me explain. As one digs deep into the earth, one layer or stratum after another is revealed. Often we can see these layers clearly exposed in the side of a mountain or roadbed cut. Geologists have given names to the succession of strata which pile one on top of another. Descending into the Grand Canyon, for example, one moves downward past the Mississippian, Devonian, Cambrian, etc., as they have been tagged by the scientists.

Here is the perplexity for the evolutionists: The Cambrian is the last stratum of the descending levels that has any fossils in it. All the lower strata below the Cambrian have absolutely no record of life, period. Why not? The Cambrian layer is full of all the major kinds of animals found today. In other words, there is nothing primitive about the structure of these most ancient fossils known to man. Essentially they compare with the complexity of current living creatures. But the big question is, "Where are their ancestors? Where are all the evolving creatures that should have led up to these highly developed fossils?" According to the theory of evolution, the pre-Cambrian strata should be filled with more primitive forms of those Cambrian fossils, in the process of evolving upward.

Darwin confessed in his book, Origin of the Species: "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer ... the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." Page 309.

How amazing! Darwin admitted having no way to defend his theory, but he still would not adjust his theory to meet the unanswerable arguments against it. Many other evolutionary scientists have expressed similar disappointment and frustration. Dr. Daniel Axelrod of the University of California calls it "one of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution."

Dr. Austin Clark of the U.S. National Museum wrote concerning the Cambrian fossils, "Strange as it may seem ... mollusks were mollusks just as unmistakenly as they are now." The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, page 101.

Drs. Marshall Kay and Edwin Colbert of Columbia University marveled over the problem in these words: "Why should such complex organic forms be in rocks about 600 million years old and be absent or unrecognized in the records of the preceding two billion years? ... If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than Cambrian is puzzling." Stratigraphy and Life History, page 102.

George Gaylord Simpson, the Crown Prince of Evolution, summarized it: "The sudden appearance of life is not only the most puzzling feature of the whole fossil record, but also its greatest apparent inadequacy." The Evolution of Life, page 144.

In the face of these forced admissions of failure to find supporting scientific evidence, how can these men of science continue to press so dogmatically for their shaky views? No wonder they fight to keep students from hearing the opposing arguments. Their positions would crumble under the impartial investigation of honest research.

The absence of pre-Cambrian fossils points to one great fact unacceptable to the evolutionists, a sudden creative act of God which brought all the major creatures into existence at the same time. Their claims that creationism is unscientific are made only to camouflage their own lack of true evidence. The preponderance of physical scientific data is on the side of creation, not evolution.

The subject of strata beds leads into the interesting question as to how these layers were formed, and why the evolutionists have "guesstimated" their age in the billions of years. The dating of those layers has been done on the basis of the theory of uniformity. This theory assumes that all the natural processes at work in the past have operated exactly as they do today. In other words, we can only explain the creation of those strata on the basis of what we see happening in the world now. How long does it require now for sedimentation to build a foot deep stratum? Then that age is assigned to any 12-inch layer, no matter how deeply located within the earth.

Is that a valid assumption to make? Have all the natural forces of the past been just what we can demonstrate and understand today? How naive and conceited to compel ages past to conform to our limited observation and experience. We can assume what we please, but it proves absolutely nothing except our own gullibility. The Bible explains very graphically about a flood which ravaged the face of this earth, covering the highest mountains, and completely destroying all plant and animal life outside the ark. The destructive action of the deluge is expressed by these words in the Bible: "The same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights." Genesis 7:11, 12.

The existence of those strata can be scientifically accounted for in perfect harmony with the Bible record. The universal flood of Genesis provides a much more reasonable explanation of the strata than evolution's speculations. As the waters receded from the earth, powerful tides and currents carved out the great canyons in a short time. Layers of debris, according to the specific weight, were laid down, compressing plant and animal life into a compact seam or stratum. Only thus can we explain the vast oil reserves and coal beds around the world. These are the products of vegetation and animal bodies being buried under extreme heat and pressure. No such process of fossilization is taking place today. No oil or coal is forming by present natural forces at work. Uniformity fails here.

The fact is, there had to be a gigantic, cataclysmic overturn of nature, killing and burying millions of tons of plant and animal life. The position of some fossils standing upright through one or more strata indicates that the process was not slow or age long. The material had to be deposited quickly around the body of the animal, or it could not have remained in its erect position. Millions of fish were buried by the flood, many of them contorted as though suddenly overtaken by a phenomenal force. Marine fossils have been recovered from the highest mountain ranges, and a check list on other scientific evidences point to a universal deluge over the entire planet.



Prayer Request:

Share a Prayer Request


Bible Question:

Ask a Bible Question
God's Promises

Back To Top