|Distance Education At Trinity School Of Apologetics And Theology Accredited, Tuition-Free Masters/Doctorate
The Theory Of Evolution is everywhere today, and no one can escape it by simply ignoring it. The idea of evolution is as old as human civilization itself is, but it became powerful only after Charles Darwin proposed his theory in the last century.
On receiving the impetus from Darwin, people started using this theory to explain everything — from the origin of the universe to the origin of life, and from the evolution of religion to language. Education systems all over the world have become so much permeated with this theory that it is now impossible to separate between evolution and truth. This is the reason why everyone must definitely confront this subject.
Within the Christian world one can see three approaches to the subject of Bible and Evolution :
Approaches To Bible And Evolution: There are mainly three approaches
1–Some people accept the Theory of Evolution as a fact, and completely reject the account of creation recorded in the Bible.
2–Others accept both Evolution as well as Creation as a fact, and try to reconcile them with each other.
3–The third group accepts the record of creation as true, and points out that Evolution is only a theory of science.
The first group — which accepts evolution and rejects Bible — stands on a shaky and false ground. They forget that evolution is only a theory, as implied even by the name : Theory of Evolution. No one in his right mind should use a theory or hypothesis to reject something else — specially if that thing already stands on good ground. As far as the Bible is concerned, it has such authority and reliability (as demonstrated by scientific and historical researches) that one needs more than a hypothesis or theory to reject the accounts given in it.
The second approach, that tries to reconcile evolution and creation with each other, exposes their ignorance of the issues involved. Evolution is only a theory, and therefore trying to reconcile it with Bible (or trying to reconcile the Bible with evolution) is not logical. A theory is, after all, only a theory. It is not an established fact, and therefore it is a lack of understanding that prompts many to synthesize it with Bible. Any synthesis between a theory and Bible is a foolish attempt because the theory has no permanence !
The third approach is the most logical, reasonable, and scientific. It starts with the recognition that the Theory of Evolution is still a THEORY, a mere hypothesis. Over one and a half century of investigations have not brought forward any proof for it, so that it remains only a hypothesis even today. Further, many things that were considered as proofs of evolution have now been discredited. This is the reason why some time ago the Readers’ Digest published an article, “Why Darwinists Are Abandoning Darwinism”. This article is a non-technical reflection of what is going on in the scientific world.
Several people, most of whom were originally dedicated to Darwinism or other forms of evolution, have started publishing books attacking it all. The titles are too numerous to list in a small lesson like this, but some of the noteworthy ones are: Implications Of Evolution by G. A. Kerkut, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis by Michael Denton, and The Mystery Of Life’s Origin by Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen.
The Theory Of Evolution is only a THEORY, and that also a theory facing serious crisis. As long as it continues to be a supposition — that also a shaky one — there is no need to reconcile the record of creation with the theory of evolution.
What About The Fossils: At this point many might wonder, “then what about the fossils”. Fossils are remains of life in the past. Most writers on the Theory Of Evolution directly or indirectly imply that numerous fossils are available to demonstration that life has evolved. Since fossils are remains of life from the past, they ought to demonstrate evolution — if it has ever taken place.
According to the theory of evolution, all living creatures have gradually developed from primitive life forms through gradual changes. Thus each new form must be preceded by numerous intermediate forms, having part the characters of the primitive form and part the character of the final form. Numerous “intermediate fossil” candidates were advanced by Evolutionist, but today not even a single one of them is accepted by the scientific community as intermediate.
This information is not mentioned in the elementary textbooks of biology. Yet you can verify this to yourself by referring to advanced textbooks, research publications, and scientific encyclopedias. The information is available so easily — from the world of science itself — that you need not depend upon our words. Investigate it yourself ! Truth cannot be hidden from searching eyes !
Let me mention some of the alleged fossil-proofs and their present status :
Most Biology textbooks mention the “Horse Evolution”. They claim that a chain of fossils is available to document the evolution of modern horse from its humble ancestor that lived millions of years ago. Pick up any of the more recent research monographs on fossils, and you will be told that this is false. There is no such chain. Many of the fossils in this series, mentioned in school and college textbooks with confidence, do not even exist !
Other textbooks will tell you about archaeopteryx, the first bird ancestor from reptiles. Unfortunate to the book-writers and the theoreticians who believed all this, recently these fossils were exposed to be fakes ! They were manipulated artificially to make you believe in the theory of evolution.
Still other textbooks mention the evolution of man in no uncertain words. They parade names of fossil-men one after another to convince you that the evolution of man from monkeys is an established fact. Who has not heard the name of Neanderthal Man ? But did you know that the evolution of man is a great myth of the twentieth century ! You can check it for yourself by referring to standard scientific journals and reference books !
A great property of science is its in-built process of reexamination and revaluation of every statement. Nothing is above it. Every generation will reexamine the statements of the previous generations — and that also in the light of increased knowledge and better testing equipment. The fossils used to demonstrate the evolution of man from monkeys are no exception. The scientific community has been reexamining all these bones, and has been discovering information that is shocking for most adherents of evolution !
According to the latest finds, fossils discovered in support of human evolution so far can be placed into four categories :
Misunderstood Fossils: This includes a lot of notable names like: Nebraska Man, South Colorado Man, and the elder Java Man. These “fossil-men” were created on the basis of insufficient bits and pieces of bones — scanty evidence for any serious work. The evolution-believing scientists went ahead anyway with their version because this is what they are used to doing in the study of “prehistoric man” — as pointed out by many encyclopedias and research monographs.
But eventually it was revealed that the first of the above fossil-men was created from pig teeth, the other from horse bone, and the last one from elephant bone. None of them was genuine !
Fake Fossils: Many well known names like Piltdown Man, Java Man, and China Man are connected with some kind of fake or forgery. The first one was created by mixing human and monkey bones, burying them, and then by “discovering them”. Over 500 learned publications appeared on it before this deception came to light.
The second one was discovered from three different trenches far apart and then put together to make one “ape-man”. Two skulls of modern man found at the same layer were locked up for two decades to deceive the world into accepting this ape-man as genuine.
The third one was described in great detail by its discoverer, but he never allowed any other scientist to handle the original bones — a practice not in keeping with the spirit of open, honest, and unprejudiced scientific investigation. Some scientists expressed misgivings about it, but having no access to the original fossils they could not check it for themselves. And finally it disappeared in mysterious circumstances !!
Suppressed Fossils: Most scientists are honest researchers, and they do not allow their prejudices and philosophies to interfere with their discoveries. Consequently, most of them make the results of their researches known to others as soon as something is discovered.
Over the course of years, dozens of human fossils have been discovered by scientist and placed in museums around the world, only to the embarrassment of evolution-advocates. Though genuine, these fossils contradict the theory of evolution.
There are many examples of genuine fossils, that were later suppressed by the evolution propagators. The saw to it that in the case of embarrassing fossils, their previous exhibit positions in Museums are changed. Many fossils have even been removed and confined to inaccessible storerooms to save embarrassment. But information about them is coming out gradually.
Genuine Fossils: A few of the fossils discovered so far are genuine, and after revaluation the scientific community has stated that the genuine fossils contain both cent per cent monkey-like creatures and also cent per cent humans — but NO intermediate fossils or fossil-links.
There is no “ape-man”, missing-link, or intermediate fossils among the genuine discoveries. The notion of man’s evolution from monkeys is only an unproven hypothesis or a wishful thinking. The missing links are still missing !
The Theory Of Evolution is only a THEORY, a hypothesis, of science. Theories are necessary for the growth of science, but they do not represent facts or laws. They represent information that has not been verified or confirmed yet.
Since the idea of evolution is still a hypothesis, and since most of the presumed proofs have vanished, and since many well-informed evolution-believing scientists have abandoned this theory, there is no need to worry about this assumption. It does not contradict the account of creation recorded in Genesis.