Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
How is it then possible that such different and complex organs, which fit one another in every morphological and physiological detail, could have evolved suddenly?
Evolution: B. Rensch regards sexuality as an essential evolutionary factor that is co-responsible for our being here at all [R1, p. 64]: “Without sexual differentiation, the line of descent would have been much slower and probably would not have reached the present high level, so that man would not have developed.” R.W. Kaplan sees a similar meaning for evolution and the sexual differentiation which was spawned by it [K1, p. 231]: “The ‘invention’ of sexual reproduction is certainly the one decisive cause for the development of the higher plants and animals to much more complex levels of organization.”
Scientific Objections: Through fertilization, new combinations of genes continually arise so that many variants come into existence, and only those, according to the evolutionary view, who fit the environment best survive. However, this process is excluded from any upward trend in the line of descent, because no essentially new information arises as a result of the recombinations occurring in sexual reproduction. Through all their countless recombination efforts, all breeders of plants and animals have provided proof that even the most highly bred cows remain cows, and that sunflowers never grow from wheat.
Sexual reproduction is only possible when both sexes have fully functional reproductive organs at the same time.Sexual reproduction is only possible when both sexes have fully functional reproductive organs at the same time. By definition (see assumption E8), an evolutionary process is not directed by some purposeful strategic plan. How is it then possible that such different and complex organs, which fit one another in every morphological and physiological detail, could have evolved suddenly? Furthermore, we must bear in mind—as Kaplan concedes—that “the profusion of ways and means is enormous and the sophistication of the tricks the sexes employ to come together, is often astoundingly marvelous; their study is one of the most interesting fields in biology.” The question arises why Rensch still believes that “no wise Creator was necessary for their origin” [R1, p. 66].
The Bible: In the creation account, it is repeatedly emphasized that
God originally provided the capacity for reproduction. The plants
seed according to their kinds” (Gen. 1:12), and the animals were
commanded by God to “
increase in number” (Gen. 1:22). Each kind
was equipped and enabled to reproduce itself in its own way. Human
beings also did not rely on the supposed “invention” of sexuality for
their origin. It was God’s idea to create man and woman differently,
apart from the animals: “
So God created man . . . male and female
he created them” (Gen. 1:27, emphasis added). Man was also commanded
be fruitful and increase in number” (Gen. 1:28).
Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus on providing answers to questions about the Bible—particularly the book of Genesis—regarding key issues such as creation, evolution, science, and the age of the earth.