How Everything Became “Evolution”

But the only way they can do that is to diminish the definition of evolution to the point that it becomes completely impotent to anyone with a clear understanding of the field of modern genetics. And what do I mean by that? Well, the distinguished biochemist and evolutionist Dr. Gerald Kerkut defined the big picture of what evolution means in the following way.

The theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.1

And that’s easy for anyone to grasp because it mirrors what Charles Darwin taught in his “tree of life” diagram. Simply put, it means evolutionists believe there was once no life on earth, then there was the first living thing that came into being, and then the resultant offspring of that supposed first life-form were then somehow slowly modified, which resulted in every living thing that has ever been on the planet—including us.

What Type of Change Equals “Evolution”?

If that story were actually true, then the type of change or genetic modification that would have been required to turn pond scum into people would have been truly remarkable. It would have had to have been the type of creative activity far beyond all of mankind’s combined creative accomplishments throughout history. What do I mean by that?

Well, consider that this supposed first living thing would only have had the genetic information for bare minimum capabilities and requirements to survive. Presumably, it wouldn’t have had eyes, ears, teeth, flippers, lips, a heart, lungs, sonar capabilities, the ability to use photosynthesis, had camouflage, night vision, fur or scales, protective or hunting instincts, feathers, preening glands for those feathers, muscles, bones, migratory instincts, etc.

All those incredible capabilities that creatures have and the forms, functions, and features that allow them to perform the brilliant things you see when you watch a David Attenborough special would have had to have been created over the supposed billions of years through some kind of mechanism that could create brand-new functional genetic information.

Microevolution to the Rescue?

But again, that hasn’t been observed and can’t be experimentally verified. So to show observational support for the story of evolution, the term biological evolution is now often simply described as “changes in gene frequency within a population over time,” “descent with modification,” or even more simply as just “changes in living things over time.”

This is then designated under the term microevolution, and of course, because it can be experimentally demonstrated, evolutionists then use this to crow about how silly the creationists are for denying observational science and lying about science when they say that evolution has never been observed.

The problem is creationists don’t deny any of the observational science that is labeled as microevolution because the changes that are touted as “proof of evolution” through this process don’t evolve anything. Nothing they demonstrate contradicts the Genesis account where God stated 10 times that he created creatures to reproduce according to their kinds.

These mechanisms don’t create new forms, functions, and features that never existed previously—they are simply the result of a rearrangement of already-existing genetic information or the result of deleterious, information-damaging genetic mutations.

Berkeley’s Best?

But don’t take my word for it. To demonstrate, let’s go to the prestigious University of Berkeley’s website where we find an article titled “Mechanisms of Microevolution.”2 Ranked in 2024 as the US’ number one public university3 for nine of the last ten years (and currently ranked eighth worldwide), Berkeley should be able to provide world-class examples of evolution in action, right?

So what are the four mechanisms they show? Well, to set the stage, they are using the example of changes in a population of beetles to demonstrate so-called microevolution, and the first mechanism they list is genetic mutation, where they have a diagram showing two green-colored beetles and one brown beetle. And the text says, “Some ‘green genes’ randomly mutated to ‘brown genes’ (although since any particular mutation is rare, this process alone cannot account for a big change in allele frequency over one generation).”4

Now what’s important to note here is they don’t really describe exactly how this mutation resulted in a new color of beetle (and note, the beetles are still beetles). While this may sound like the kind of mechanism that evolution requires (the creation of something new), note that brown beetles already existed.

Even if this were some kind of unique change outside of these beetles’ normal range of variation, the similar types of color changes we have studied in other creatures have always been the result of an information-suppressing or information-damaging mutation, not an information-increasing one.

For example, blue eyes in humans are due to a mutation causing less production of the normal amount of brown pigment in human eyes.5 So the new color isn’t because of brand-new genetic information—it’s due to a lack of something that used to be there.

Also, red flowers that get a mutated gene have been observed producing pink flowers because of the lack of pigment that they normally produced.6 We’ve even seen normally lighter flowers that get a mutation that damages a regulatory gene causing pink flowers to produce much darker-colored variations due to the overproduction of something that used to be more controlled.7 But again, none of these examples result in the creation of anything truly new.

Berkeley’s next example is migration, or what they call gene flow. In their diagram, they show five brown beetles traveling toward five green ones (perhaps indicating they would then reproduce with one another?) with the following caption: “Some beetles with brown genes immigrated from another population, or some beetles carrying green genes emigrated.”8

Now, we would agree that a group of organisms with preexisting, built-in variation may produce more offspring of one type than another because of various factors (such as the dynamic between dominant and recessive genes).

If they are simply making the point that if somehow more brown beetles happen to wander into (migrate) an area where more green ones happen to wander out of (emigrate from), then of course, there are going to be more brown ones in that area than green ones! Yet again, this isn’t an example of anything evolving or anything new coming into existence.

Their next example of a mechanism for microevolution is genetic drift, and the three diagrams they show to demonstrate it are actually pretty funny. The first is simply a group of beetles with equal amounts of both green and brown colors, and the second picture shows someone’s sneaker stepping on and squashing some of the green ones, resulting in the third diagram showing a group with more brown than green beetles. The text then says, “When the beetles reproduced, just by random luck more brown genes than green genes ended up in the offspring.”9

All this example shows is randomness applied to a population. The foot was equally likely to step on green bugs or brown. And in the next generation, randomness might swing the other way, and we might get more green bugs. Can you see what I’m getting at by mentioning how their definitions of evolution have becoming diminished to the point of meaninglessness?

If there are 100 elephants in a population, 50 with and 50 without tusks, is it evolution if in generation 1, there are randomly 52 without and 48 with tusks, and in generation 2, there are 48 without and 52 with tusks? Because it seems as if in their effort to explain how everything came about by supposed evolution they are now saying everything that happens is evolution.

The last mechanism they mention is, of course, natural selection. The diagram shows a bird that is munching on green beetles, leaving behind more brown than green ones. Here the caption says, “Beetles with brown genes escaped predation and survived to reproduce more frequently than beetles with green genes, so that more brown genes got into the next generation.”10

To that I would say—so what? This is like the lame old peppered moth example—or really, just a variation on the last example except in a more targeted fashion (i.e., a random accident vs. bird’s eating habits).

But again, whether through the accidental stepping on by a random sneaker or the result of birds being able to see green beetles easier than brown ones, how can the elimination of something be proof of evolution in action?

While it’s true that all four of these mechanisms may result in beetles with more brown genes surviving, reproducing, and becoming more dominant in subsequent generations, none of them show any type of evolution. How does any of what we talked about here have anything to do with how beetles are supposed to have come into existence in the first place? It’s just a big discussion about the survival of the fittest but nothing to do with the arrival of said fittest.

However, can they be classified as examples of “descent with modification”? Yes. Can they be labeled examples of “changes in gene frequency within a population over time”? Absolutely. And they also demonstrate that changes can happen in living things, but we all already knew that. (Is this seriously the best that the number one university in America—Berkeley—can come up with?) Yet I still have evolutionists insisting that evolution has been observed because they can reference these simplistic examples as “proof.”

The Answer for Everything?

The fact is, in practice, the story of evolution has become an answer about where everything supposedly came from. Whether discussing cosmic, geological, chemical, biological, or human evolution, many scientists claim everything that has ever happened in our universe has supposedly come about through the inherent abilities and processes that are found in nature, not by any sort of Creator.

We can see as much when we read the Humanist Manifesto, which is basically a written creed for humanists/atheists: “Humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created. Humanism believes that man is part of nature and that he emerged as the result of a continuous process. . . . As non-theists we begin with humans not God, nature not deity.”11

A Wrong Starting Point

The applicable term applied to “performing science” under this ideology is called methodological naturalism, which is akin to teaching atheism, because (under this paradigm) invoking God at any time when looking at the natural world is automatically dismissed by definition! So it’s really no wonder that many naturalists insist there is no evidence for God’s existence because evidence for his (or even evidence of design in nature by any “higher power”) existence is simply not allowed from the outset.

As the immunologist Scott Todd pointed out in a letter published in Nature magazine: “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”12

With state-run schools and media in the West teaching that ideology most of the time, what they are really teaching is atheism as “science.” So is it any wonder we’ve seen such a rise of atheism and a corresponding lack of church attendance and affiliation over the past 100 years in what were once considered Christian countries in the past?

Seeing Through the Fog of (Spiritual) War

However, more and more people are starting to see through the equivocation and misleading terminology evolutionists have been using to convince people to believe in their nonscientific worldview, and we’ll continue to point it out whenever we can. If evolutionists continue to present these laughable examples of so-called microevolution as observable evidence for their story about where everything came from, so be it. It will only help expose them—and their worldview—for what they truly are. Evolution is simply a story desperate to exclude the Creator of everything whom the evolutionists are responsible to and will one day give an account of their life.

So once again, believers can be confident in the Genesis account of creation and understand that there is absolutely nothing contradictory in the world of true science with what the Word of God says. Indeed:

The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever. Psalm 119:160