Confessions of Evolution

Confessions of Evolution

Scripture: Genesis 1:24-25
What do evolutionists know about the origin of the earth. Scientists advance theories, but that doesn't mean these are facts. There are many lacking evidences for theories of evolution. The Bible teaches clearly that in the beginning God created all things.
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.

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.


Every thinking person today must confess that there are tremendous mysteries about man and nature which baffle the keenest intellects. After all, who can answer these profound questions from the standpoint of human science or reason: What is the origin of earth? What is the origin of life? And how did the species originate?

Today we have a group of scientists who are evolutionists. They claim that they have practically solved the mystery of life in the test tube of the laboratory. These learned gentlemen maintain that they have removed the problem from the realm of faith, and have banished the supernatural from all phenomena of nature. But what do the evolutionists really know about these three basis questions? We are not interested in theories and hypotheses. As practical people we must deal in facts. Evolutionists profess to speak in the name of science. The term "science" comes from a word meaning "to know."

What do evolutionists actually know about the origin of the earth? Absolutely nothing! Science is admittedly incompetent to explain the origin of anything, for the mystery of creation is outside its purview. To be sure, scientists advance opinions and theories, as though they were demonstrated facts, but theories are, frequently, as vague as they are discordant. For example, their estimates of the age of this earth and of its sister planets, range from twenty-five million, to ten billion years. The enormous discrepancy between these figures proves them to be mere conjectures, and not the result of careful scientific deductions.

Formerly it was supposed that the nebular hypothesis fully explained the evolution of our solar system; but the theory of stellar evolution is now being discredited by some great scientists, including Dr. Harlow Shapley, director of the Harvard College Observatory.

The famous British astronomer, Dr. J. H. Jeans, likewise denounces the nebular hypothesis as false, and he adds that, "Everything points with overwhelming force to a definite event, or series of events of creation at some time or times, not infinitely remote. The universe cannot have originated by chance out of its present ingredients, and neither can it have been always the same as now." Eos, or the Wider Aspects of Cosmogony, page 55.

What does the evolutionist know of the origin of life? The evolutionary theory demands that life must have begun from non-living matter somewhere in the remote past. But such a theory is without foundation, since nothing like it is known to science. There have been innumerable attempts to make some form of life in a test tube; but since the days of Louis Pasteur, "father" of bacteriology, all who are willing to abide by the facts of science have been obliged to confess that we know nothing at all about the origin of life. After all his suppositions, H. G. Wells makes this honest confession: "We do not know how life began on this earth."

One thing is certain, there is no such thing as life in the abstract. In other words, all living things come from previous life. Hence, in the beginning, the first living beings must have been created. In what form were they created? Would it have been easier for God to have created an amoeba than to have created a frog, a horse, or a man? It is certain that if an amoeba and nothing else were first created, it would live only long enough to starve to death, for everything in nature is interdependent. If any living object is to maintain its existence, other forms of life are imperative. Nothing lives unto itself, no bird that cleaves the air, no animal that moves upon the ground, but ministers to some other life. The creation of all the different forms of life at the very beginning, as recorded by Moses in the first chapter of Genesis, is, therefore, the only sensible, consistent explanation science can adopt regarding the origin of living things.

A writer once asked an evolutionist to explain which of the two evolved first in the process of evolution, the hen or the egg? "The egg," he ventured to reply. "Then," said the writer "there was one egg which did not come from a hen; where did this egg come from?" Seeing his predicament, the evolutionist apologized for his mistake and guessed it was the hen which came first. "Very well," said the writer, "then there was a hen which did not come from an egg. Where did that hen come from?" The evolutionist admitted that he did not know. Friends, the first chapter of Genesis contains the only true record of the creation of all forms of life, and according to that record, the first hen was created.

What do the evolutionists know about the origin of the species? Most of them hold to the opinion that the species are the result of gradual changes. However, a few evolutionists confess that the origin of species is an unsolved mystery. In his book, Evolution and Adaptation, Dr. Thomas Hunt Morgan, of Columbia University, states on page 43: "Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another one. ... The theory of descent is lacking, therefore, in the most essential feature that it needs to place the theory on a scientific basis. This must be admitted."

This is a large and frank admission for a leader in this branch of science to make, namely that evolution is essentially unscientific. The three-fold foundation on which evolution must rest as a science, that is the scientific explanation of the origin of our planet, of life, and of species, is lacking. No one has ever seen life spring up from non-living matter; no one has seen one species changing into another; and no person now living has ever seen a world evolving.

The basic theory on which evolution rests is that there has been a uniform and a continuous development from the simplest forms of life to the more complex. But this theory, that there has been a uniform development upward, known as uniformitarianism, is at variance with the true facts of geology. Instead of noticeable evolution and development upward, a comparison between contemporaneous forms of life and that of antiquity, indicates a steady downward trend of degeneration. Even a casual visit to the Washington Museum of Natural History, for example, will convince any impartial observer that at some time in the past, animals far more powerful and of vastly greater size than now exist, had roamed this earth. The giant skeletons of mastodons and dinosaurs that lived on earth in ages past, are mute but eloquent proof that instead of a progression and evolution forward, there is a continuous weakening and retrogression visible among all forms of life, including man.

As Sir William Dawson, British scientist, remarks: "Nothing is more evident in the history of fossil animals and plants of past geological ages than that persistence or degeneracy is the rule rather than the exception. ... We may almost say that all things left to themselves tend to degenerate, and only a new breathing of the Almighty Spirit can start them again on the path of advancement." Modern Ideas of Evolution, Appendix, as quoted in Geology by Prof. G. McCready Price, page 283.

A candid study of fossils and of the remains of prehistoric animals indicates further that instead of uninterrupted uniformity of evolution, there occurred at some time in the past a deluge of world-wide extent, which in the words of a distinguished scientist, has turned this world into a "great cemetery, where the rocks are the tombstones on which the buried dead have written their own epitaphs." In the soil of Bear Island and of Liachoff Islands of the frigid north, have been found entombed frozen bodies of such tropical animals as mammoths in such perfect state of preservation, and with undigested food in their mouths, as to indicate that they were involved in some sudden catastrophe, namely, the flood.

These facts not only confirm the Bible record of a universal flood, but they also indicate that a vast change in the world's climate has occurred since the flood. Sir Henry Howorth, distinguished British scientist, in his work, The Glacial Nightmare and the Flood, writes: "From what has been already stated it appears that the animal and vegetable relics found in the polar regions, embedded in strata deposited in widely separated geological eras, uniformly testify that a warm climate has in former times prevailed over the whole globe." Page 45.

These facts lead us to the inevitable conclusion that whatever geological changes took place in our world, they occurred since man was on the earth and were caused by the flood and not by evolution; and, furthermore, there is no scientific proof that any single type of fossil is older than the human race. Thus the Mosaic record, that the creation of all the basic forms of life was accomplished during the first week of time, stands vindicated.

In the first chapter of the book of Genesis is found the only scientific explanation of the origin of species: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 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; and God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:24, 25.

Here we have true science. This Genesis record states that it was God who created the different species, and that He endowed them with power to procreate after their kind. There is, to be sure, plenty of variation within the species. A grapefruit, a lime, a lemon, an orange, are variations of the citrus fruit. Species cannot overlap. Consequently, a cat has never been known to give birth to a dog. The species are firmly fixed by divine order "after their kind." All things were made by the express will of God: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. ... For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast." Psalm 33:6, 9.

Can you understand why professed Christians should have any difficulty with this clear-cut explanation? Why do we have the sad picture before us of religious leaders yielding their belief in God's Word, just to harmonize with scientists who are trying to prove a creation without God. The whole problem centers in man's refusal to accept the authority of the Bible. The rising tide of modernism and higher criticism has spread like a plague within the churches. Theologians have contaminated their ministerial students, who in turn have infected the laity. And the end is not yet. With increasing tempo the tide is sweeping whole denominations into the stream of skepticism. This broadcast is seeking to strengthen the faith of those who take God at His Word, and who accept the Bible as the infallible, inspired counsel of that God.

Name:

Email:

Prayer Request:


Share a Prayer Request
Name:

Email:

Bible Question:


Ask a Bible Question

Back To Top