Clear Evidence of Evolution or ...

Dear Sir:

I have noted in your materials an assertion that “no evolution has ever been observed.” This assertion is clearly mistaken.

The Chola people live on the Altiplano of Bolivia & Peru. They are generally short, barrel-chested, with large feet.

They are barrel-chested because at that altitude, bigger lungs make survival easier. They are short so their center of gravity is lower, also a help in thin altitudes. And their feet are larger than lowlanders' to help assure footing in their high environs. Since these folks, isolated until the 1920s from the rest of the world, are so different from us lowlanders, I'd say this is clear evidence of evolution.

Whether or not I believe that the earth was created in 7 days is a moot point. The earth IS as it is. The fact that I believe that species have evolved does not make me unworthy of God’s salvation. It means only that I have used God’s gift-my mind-to think critically.

Not all evolutionists believe there is no God.

—T.J., U.S.

Dear Sir:

I have noted in your materials an assertion that “no evolution has ever been observed.”

I’m not sure where you received this statement as it wasn’t on our website when I searched. However, this depends on the definition of evolution anyway. If evolution simply means “change,” then of course change has been observed.

In fact, many exhibits at the museum undergo “evolution” (i.e., change) by adding signage, repositioning exhibits, removing out-dated material, and so on. We could also use the term “intelligently designed” to describe the change in the museum exhibits. We could further say that the “creation” of the exhibits involves changes. Isn’t it strange how the terms evolution, intelligent design, and creation can be used together in this context?

These terms also have other meanings. Evolution, for example, can also refer to the general theory of evolution, which is the idea that single-celled organisms gained new genetic information over millions and billions of years, and eventually arrived at “higher life-forms” such as man.

This assertion is clearly mistaken.

The Chola people live on the Altiplano of Bolivia & Peru. They are generally short, barrel-chested, with large feet.

They are barrel-chested because at that altitude, bigger lungs make survival easier. They are short so their center of gravity is lower, also a help in thin altitudes. And their feet are larger than lowlanders’ to help assure footing in their high environs. Since these folks, isolated until the 1920s from the rest of the world, are so different from us lowlanders, I’d say this is clear evidence of evolution.

But this is not evidence of the general theory of evolution in which molecules change into man. Instead, it is merely an example of natural selection and mutation acting on a population. This “evolution” is “change” in the sense discussed above. So, be careful of bait-and-switch arguments. I’m surprised at the number of people who accept evolution and who can’t tell the difference between the general theory of evolution (GTE) and Natural Selection. The idea of natural selection began with a creationist, while the GTE is based on naturalistic ideas, which attempt to explain life without God. [Editor’s note: For more information on natural selection, see “Natural Selection vs. Evolution.”]

The example you have given is merely an example of change among an already-human population. This is a fine-tuned expression of the variety in genetic information that already existed in the human population, not an example of generation of copious amounts of new genetic information. The GTE requires the addition of new information—not just a little bit, but a massive amount of genetic information.

Natural selection cannot generate brand new genetic information.

Natural selection cannot generate brand new genetic information. It simply doesn’t work that way. Instead, it filters information that already exists. This is why most evolutionists have moved from the outdated concept of traditional Darwinism (natural selection + millions of years) to a position of neo-Darwinism, which claims mutations add new information (natural selection + mutations + millions of years).

Of course, mutations have only been shown to destroy or rearrange (usually detrimentally) the information already in the genome, so this process is moving in the opposite direction of what the GTE requires. But this doesn’t mean that evolutionists don’t place their faith in mutations anyway. Sci-fi flicks like X-men and Spiderman commonly portray mutations giving people special powers. However, mutations are not what they are purported to be; if you want to see what mutations really do, visit a cancer ward in a hospital.

Mutations are destructive and are a sign that the world is under a curse, which is all the more reason to place one’s faith in Christ and be saved. For a more in-depth discussion of mutations and information, please see my chapter in War of the Worldviews, “Are Mutations Part of the ‘Engine’ of Evolution?”

Whether or not I believe that the earth was created in 7 days is a moot point.

Actually, God created in six days, not seven. He rested on the 7th. And the timing of creation is not a moot point. Either God created in six days, or He is being intentionally deceptive. If God lied about how long He took to create, then how would we know if God lied about salvation? No, God is truthful. He is the truth (John 14:6), and He doesn’t lie (Hebrews 6:18). When God says He created in six days (Exodus 11:6, 31:17), then we must accept what He says. Will you trust God when He speaks about His creative acts? If not, then there is no reason for you to trust Him when He speaks about anything else in the Bible (John 3:12).

The earth IS as it is.

I agree; the earth IS as it is . . . but did you realize the Bible explains why? Why do things die? Genesis 3. Why are there massive geological layers? Genesis 6–8. Why do day and night not cease (and scientific laws do not change)? Genesis 8:22, etc.

Variation among the animal kinds and people is also a biblical concept. Jacob used animal variation to his advantage (Genesis 30:31–42), and Jacob and Esau looked different (Genesis 27:11), and so on. These changes primarily stem from selection in the already-existing genes, not from adding new information as the GTE requires.

The fact that I believe that species have evolved does not make me unworthy of God’s salvation.

Well, we are all unworthy of God’s salvation—no matter what we believe about origins. We are saved by His grace through repentance of our sins and faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of His Son on the cross on our behalf—not because we are “worthy” of His gift of eternal life.

However, your belief shows a lack of respect for what God says in His word, particularly in Genesis. Besides, what makes you equate speciation with the GTE? Part of the confusion stems from the fact that “species” is a man-made term. In Genesis 1, animals and plants are described as being created “after their kind.” A “kind” is considered to be much closer to the “family” level. Often creationists say the animals and plants were to “reproduce after their kinds”; however, the Bible doesn’t actually say this. This statement is a derivation from other biblical claims:

It is within these kinds that much variation, even speciation, can take place. This would have happened rapidly after the Flood when things began to re-multiply and spread over the earth.

It means only that I have used God’s gift-my mind-to think critically.

The basis to think critically comes from Genesis as well. Man is made in the image of a logical God (Genesis 1:26–27); hence, man has a basis for reasoning. But also from Genesis, there is a basis for why man’s reasoning is faulty—man’s sin and the subsequent curse that God placed on His original “very good” creation (Genesis 3). When Genesis 1–11 are denied as accounts of actual history or mythologized, which is what one who believes in the GTE must do, then there is no basis for reasoning. There is also no basis for needing a Savior!

Without Adam’s sin (an actual, historical event), which brought death and the Curse into the world, there is no reason for Christ, the last Adam to have come (1 Corinthians 15:45). The punishment for sin was death (Genesis 2:17); this is why Jesus had to die physically. The sin against an infinite Creator demands an infinite punishment. The blood of bulls and goats (sacrificed throughout the Old Testament) cannot fully atone for this punishment; they merely provided a temporary covering for sin (Hebrews 10:4). Jesus Christ, who is the infinite God, could take on this punishment, and did so because He loved us. But Christ also showed that death could not restrain Him. He resurrected and showed the world that He has power over death, unlike all other religious leaders who are still in the grave.

When one takes away a literal Adam and Eve, there is suddenly no reason for Christ to come and no reason for a Savior to die. According to the law of non-contradiction, one cannot have “A” and “not A” in the same relationship at the same time. Mixing the GTE with the Bible has this problem. Having Adam (A) and not having Adam (not A) in the same relationship at the same time is logically impossible.

Not all evolutionists believe there is no God.

I agree. But as I said before, evolutionists have no basis for a belief in God when they discount Genesis. Ken Ham wrote an excellent article on this subject titled “The ‘god’ of an Old Earth,” in which he said:

“Christians who believe in an old earth (billions of years) need to come to grips with the real nature of the god of an old earth—it is not the loving God of the Bible. [. . .] The god of an old earth is one that uses death as part of creating—death therefore can’t be the penalty for sin—or ‘the last enemy’ (1 Cor. 15:26).”

This article often upsets people who believe in an old earth because it points out the cruel, unloving god of an old earth is not the one described in Scripture. People falsely accuse us of implying that they are not saved, since they are following some attributes of this false, worldly god. However, in many places on our website, we make it clear that one can be a Christian and believe in an old earth and/or molecules-to-man evolution. For example, see “Is it Possible to be a Christian and an Evolutionist?”

If they are brothers and sisters in Christ, however, they are being inconsistent by ascribing attributes of this cruel god of an old earth to the biblical God. Sadly, the Bible often gets dismissed because of these false attributes.

This breaks our hearts at Answers in Genesis because we love God and His Word, and we want Christians to honor and respect the Word of the Lord over all other belief systems, including the GTE and an old earth. Is neglecting the Word of God expressing love to God?

“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”

Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:36–40)

With kindness in Christ and love for His word,
Bodie