Evolution—A Proven Fact?

I am constantly amazed when I see claims like this one:

If someone asks, “Do you believe in evolution?,” they are framing it wrong. That’s like asking, “Do you believe in blue?”

You see, “Evolution is a fact!” is the rallying cry of many evolutionists as they try to push their naturalistic, anti-God religion on people. But this dogmatic assertion is a gross misrepresentation of the nature of evolution. As I have pointed out over and over again, evolution is said to have happened in the past, but consequently cannot be tested, repeated, or observed. You can’t “prove” evolution because you weren’t there in the past to observe it!

The article that made that claim in the 1st paragraph above also says that “the truth of [evolution] is easily demonstrated,” that there are “mountains of data” for evolution, and that every branch of science supplies “a nonstop barrage of additional proof points.” Out of all the supposed proof out there, the author mostly addresses just one “proof point”—natural selection.

As I pointed out during my debate with Bill Nye “the Science Guy” this past February, it’s a common tactic of evolutionists to “bait and switch.” They demonstrate change within a kind (which no rational person denies) and then call these minor changes molecules-to-man evolution. But they are not the same thing! What is termed “natural selection” works on existinginformation but has never—not even once—been demonstrated to add new functional information to the genome. Instead, natural selection usually leads to a decrease of information (or conservation of—or new—combinations of previously existing information). But evolution absolutely requires an addition of brand-new information into the genome. After all, you can’t change a fish into an amphibian without new functional information! Yet no known mechanism can provide this essential new information. Of course, the author of the article never addressed this insurmountable objection to evolution.

Accepting biological evolution absolutely requires faith—blind faith. You must have faith that somehow by an unknown process that has never been seen to occur, life came from non-life—even though in all observed cases, life only comes from other life (as the accepted law of biogenesis demonstrates). Some object to this idea and say that it is not part of biological evolution, but then we can ask them, "Then where did the first living thing come from so that it might begin evolving?" You must also have faith that, somehow by an unknown process that has never been seen to occur, new functional information suddenly generated itself in DNA—even though information alwayscomes from information. This requires a giant leap of absolutely blind faith!

Now, unlike the blind faith of evolutionists, we have a reliable, eyewitness account from someone who was there and who doesn’t lie (Titus 1:2). We know that we have the correct history of Earth and life because God’s Word has clearly revealed to us what the Creator did. Scientific discoveries—when properly interpreted through the lens of God’s Word—support the Bible’s account of history, which gives the origin of life and information. And observational science in genetics (as well as in other fields, like geology and astronomy) overwhelmingly confirms the Bible’s account of history.

Why will secular evolutionists not admit that what they believe concerning origins is by faith (albeit a blind faith)? It’s because ultimately this is a spiritual issue. The secularists are in rebellion against God and don’t want to acknowledge they have adopted a religion to justify their unbelief. Romans 1 makes this very clear, as we read that those who reject God “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18).

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

 

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.