What is evolution?

The typical definition of evolution is “the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.”

However, there are actually six meanings of the word ‘evolution’. Only one of these is actually supported by scientific evidence. The six types are:

  • Cosmic evolution – the origin of time, space and matter. Science currently theorises this usually with the big bang.
  • Chemical evolution – the origin of elements. According to the big bang theory, the explosion produced hydrogen and helium and the other elements evolved from these. This is impossible as you need the stars so the elements can evolve but you need the elements already there to form the stars.
  • Stellar evolution – the origin of stars and planets. No one has ever seen a star form and we do  not know how this happens.
  • Organic evolution – the origin of life. Somehow life had to come from non-living material.
  • Macro-evolution – the origin of different species by changing from one kind into another. This has never been observed, we have never seen a dog produce a non-dog, etc. Assumes all the plants and animals we see today evolved from one originating life form.
  • Micro-evolution – changes within the kinds. This has been observed, and is just known as variation, for example long-haired and short-haired variations of the same dog. This only involves selecting genetic information that is already there, not mutating new ones. 
A comparison of the macro-evolution and micro-evolution theories.

Is evolution scientific?

Science is defined as “a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws”.

There are two types of science, operational science (which involves doing experiments in the present, leading to developments in technology, medicine, space exploration and so on) and historical science (which is limited because we cannot experiment on the past but only make inferences based on the present). 

Religion is defined as “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe”.

The first five definitions of evolution are pseudoscientific. Scientists only give examples of micro-evolution and imply that this proves all six types.

As the first five examples of evolution are not based on study and knowledge, but rather belief, they are more religious than scientific. They are simply a belief system about the past, cause, purpose and nature of our universe. They are not observable or supported by evidence as science should be, but unfounded theories.

Only micro-evolution is scientific, and this is more commonly called variation or adaption, it is nothing to do with the origins of our species from non-living matter. Through micro-evolution, new abilities do not evolve but are selected from genetic information that already exists.

Isn’t evolution proven?

Today, through the education system as well as the media, the majority of the world is indoctrinated by evolutionary theory. They are taught that evolution is proven and anyone who doubts it is unintelligent or denying the facts that science has so clearly demonstrated.

However, when you examine the so-called evidence for evolution (especially Darwinian macro-evolution), nothing stands. ‘Proof’ has either been misunderstood, recorded fraudulently, invented as a hoax, been distorted when it has nothing to do with evolution, or later discovered to be in error. There are many examples of this, some of which will be given below.

Macro-evolution is also called molecules-to-man evolution. This is used to explain the origin of humans and all the animals we see today from one unevolved ancestor. Evolutionists say that mutations create new information and through natural selection these changes prevail and take over. This has never been supported by any scientific evidence.

What about Darwin’s finches?

Darwin’s finches

Darwin observed a number of finches that lived on the Galapagos Islands with different shaped beaks which helped them with the types of foods they each ate. Darwin argued that the finches evolved from one common ancestor to help them find food.

However, the finches are not evidence for  macro-evolution, but rather micro-evolution. They were not observed changing from a different species, but finches came from finches, reproducing after their own kind as in Genesis 1:21 “And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”

This is not one species evolving into another (macro-evolution), but natural selection selecting the most beneficial gene (from those that already existed, not creating new material) to aid the survival of the different variations of finches. Natural selection cannot create, only select.

What about the similarity between humans and apes?

Evolutionists argue that the genetic similarity between humans and apes is between 96-99%, and therefore this is proof of evolution as we are almost the same as them except for slight genetic development.

Firstly, even if human and chimp DNA were around 97% similar, this is still a huge difference, equivalent to 90 million genetic base pairs difference, which would fill 30 large books full of information. This is an impossible barrier for mutations to cross, even over millions of years.Ape_skeletons

Additionally, even if there is genetic similarity, this is not evidence for common ancestry, but rather a common designer. If God designed and created both humans and apes, why would he not be able to use some of the same design characteristics that would work with and benefit both species? We also have 90% shared genetic similarity with cats, 60% shared DNA with a banana but this has nothing to do with evolution, but rather the unity of God’s creation.

What about peppered moths?

Peppered_Moth._Biston_betularia_2_-_Flickr_-_gailhampshireTextbooks usually teach that peppered moths are an example of evolution. Peppered moths can be either dark or light in colour and rest on the trunks of trees. During the Industrial Revolution, tree trunks were blackened, and so when the light coloured moths rested, they were visible to predators while the darker moths were not. Evolutionists argued that at this point, lighter moths evolved into darker moths, resulting in a larger number of dark moths.

Firstly, this is an example of natural selection, not evolution as both dark and light moths existed before and after the Industrial Revolution. Also, the numbers of light moths increased again while the tree trunks were still darkened.

Furthermore, recent evidence has shown that moths do not actually rest on the tree trunks during the day, and that photos and videos of the moths resting on the tree trunks were actually staged, with some moths even being glued to the tree! Yet the peppered moths are still taught as an example of evolution.

What about Haeckel’s embryos?

Haeckel’s embryo drawings

Biogenetic law (or embryonic recapitulation) is the idea that during the development of embryos, human embryos can be seen to go through the same stages which display a rerun of our ‘evolution’.

So apparently, during the early stages of an embryo, you can see gill slits, then a reptilian-like  face as a human embryo passes quickly through the stages of evolution from fish to amphibian to reptile and so on as it changes to a human.

This idea came from a series of embryo drawings by Ernst Haeckel in 1868, but within a few months they were shown to be fraudulent. Haeckel had deliberately drawn the embryos inaccurately to make the different species look alike. He had also printed the same image several times to make the embryos look identical and then claimed they were different species.

In 1997, actual photographs were taken of a large number of embryos and showed that embryos of distinct animals are very different from each other, but also that this was completely in contrast to what Haeckel had drawn.

Haeckel’s embryo drawings (top) compared with Richardson’s photographs of the real embryos (bottom)

However, even though the well-known evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould said in 1980 that biogenetic law “should be defunct today”, it has still been taught in textbooks recently as proof of evolution. Evolutionists still use it to get their idea that in early development human embryos have gill slits like a fish, which they do not.

What about vestigial organs?

Many evolutionists claim that humans and animals have vestigial organs, which means organs without any known use. They claim that these are no longer needed due to our evolution but we still have them because natural selection has not eliminated them yet. However, it is impossible to prove that an organ has no use, as we may just not have discovered it yet.

For example, one hundred organs in humans were once thought to be useless but are now known to have essential uses. The human appendix actually helps to control bacteria entering the intestines. We can live without it, but that does not mean that it is not beneficial – we can live without arms but that doesn’t mean we would choose it, or evolve past it. The coccyx (or tailbone) is not a remnant of a tail from our ape ancestors, but actually an important point of attachment for muscles, tendons and ligaments.

Furthermore, even if there was a vestigial organ, this is an argument for devolution and decay, not evolution. If birds have wings that they no longer use (such as ostrich wings), this is not proof of evolution, but of the loss of a feature. They have not gained any new features through mutation, but lost the ability to fly. However, even wings on flightless birds are not vestigial, they can be used to flap during mating rituals or scaring away predators.

Another example evolutionists use of vestigial organs are a whale’s hind legs which are contained within their flesh. They say this is evidence that they evolved from a cow-like land creature. However, now we know that these are essential to help to strengthen the reproductive organs.

We cannot argue that an organ is vestigial just because we have not found a use for it yet, and it is in no way proof for evolution, but rather for a designer (God) who created all aspects of the human/animal body for a purpose and to work together perfectly.

What about ‘missing links’?

The fossil record does not contain any missing links that are actually in a stage of evolution between apes and man. If evolution were true, there would be many of these, but there are not.

All supposed missing links are either an extinct form of ape, an ape we have living today, or a human. Many of them are fraudulent, or have been made from an interpretation of what the bones should be, rather than factual information. For example:

The image they created of Nebraska man and his wife using one tooth
  • Nebraska man was “scientifically” built from a finding of one tooth. Scientists later found it was actually a pig tooth.
  • Piltdown man was a human skull and an orangutan’s jaw. Evolutionists filed them down to make them fit together for a hoax. Taught as proof of evolution in textbooks for forty years.
  • Neanderthal man had a hunched back so they said he was partway evolved between a man and  an ape and was becoming a straighter back from stooped, as apes walk on four legs. However now they know it was just an old man with arthritis.
  • Australopithecus (for example one known as ‘Lucy’),where they found a few bones and yet created a whole skull. The knee bone was found a year earlier, seventy metres lower and over a mile away, and yet National Geographic called it Lucy’s knee. No feet or hand bones were found, and yet museum displays show Lucy as an ape-like creature with human feet.

    The bones they found from Lucy and the skull they supposedly created from it
  • Orce man was a skull found in Spain which they called ‘the oldest example of man in Eurasia’. It was actually a fragment of a four month old donkey skull.
  • A dolphin’s rib was labelled as a human collarbone and used to support evolution in museums.
  • Homo habilis was a ‘missing link’ formed from parts of apes and humans combined, and yet called a clear link between the species even though it never actually existed.

Basic problems with evolution:

The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends towards disorder. Everything gets worse, given enough time everything will rot, rust, decay, collapse, deteriorate etc. by itself. However, evolution proposes that over time, everything in the universe got better by itself, contradicting scientific laws.

Evolutionary theory raises a number of problems, for example what evolved first, the digestive system, the appetite, or the ability to find and eat food? What evolved first, the drive to reproduce or the ability to? What evolved first, the lungs, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed in? What evolved first, the plants or the insects that pollinate them? What evolved first, the bones or the muscles to move the bones?

Can’t evolution work alongside the Bible?

This is a view called theistic evolution – that God could have used and directed evolution to create humans and animals. It tries to harmonise theories that scientists believe to be ‘proven’, such as evolution or the age of the earth, with the Biblical account of creation. However, this is not possible for many reasons, for example:

  • Genesis 1:25 says “And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” Everything on the earth was created to reproduce “after his kind”, not to evolve into different species.
  • Genesis 1:27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Man was made on day six in God’s image, not after an evolutionary process over millions of years.
  • Genesis 2:2 “And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.” On the seventh day, God’s work was finished. This is clearly not the beginning of a continual evolutionary process over millions of years.
  • The Bible teaches the earth was made before the sun, evolution teaches the sun was made before the earth.
  • The Bible teaches the seas were made before the land, evolution teaches the land was made before oceans.
  • The Bible teaches the light came before the sun, evolution teaches the sun came before light.
  • The Bible teaches land plants came first, evolution teaches sea life came first.
  • The Bible teaches fish came before insects, evolution teaches insects came before fish.
  • The Bible teaches plants came a short while before the sun, evolution teaches the sun came before plants.
  • The Bible teaches sea life came before land animals, evolution teaches land mammals came before sea life.
  • The Bible teaches birds were created before land animals, evolution teaches that land animals existed before birds.
  • The Bible teaches man brought death into the world, evolution teaches death brought man into the world.

There are many other examples, but this clearly shows that the Biblical creation account is not compatible with the theory of evolution. Evolution is not proven, it is an unfounded belief system created by atheists to reject God as the creator of the universe and everything in it.

The only evidence they have is for micro-evolution, or variation, which is clearly observable today, but does not explain the origins of life. This comes from organic and macro-evolution, which are completely unsupported by the findings of science.

As Christians we do not need to reject the Bible and conform to the world’s constantly changing theories, the Bible stands forever and will never change or be disproven on all matters, including the origins of the earth and species. 

See the links below for more information:

Kent Hovind’s Creation Seminars


Bill Nye debates Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis









Evolution vs. God

→ Next page: The Big Bang Theory

3 thoughts on “Evolution

Add yours

  1. Hi,

    Damien here again. I’m sorry for the late reply – for some reason, WP didn’t notify me of your reply. I definitely wasn’t avoiding a conversation.

    And I also apologise if I came across a bit terse in my original post – not my intention, and looking back, I definitely could have worded stuff a bit better. Again, my apologies.

    OK, on to the point at hand:

    Is the theory of evolution supported by scientific evidence? Most definitely. When so many different independent observations about nature all point in the same direction, it takes an even stronger theory supported by even more evidence to overturn it – and when that stronger evidence comes to support the stronger theory, then evolution will be merely a stepping stone to something closer to our best understanding of reality, in much the same way alchemy was the forebearer of chemistry.

    But let’s say evolution WASN’T supported by the evidence. Firstly, have you gone and told an expert in the field of biology that his field of research has no scientific basis? Do you think if you walk in to a university biology department, that your arguments would cause the professors and research associates to reconsider their work on the spot?

    And most importantly, do you think they’re just making it up because they’re trying to avoid the Creation hypothesis?

    Just a few things on the things you raised in your response to me:

    Haeckel was never trying to deceive anyone – he made an error of judgement which he corrected in later editions of his book. There is plenty of literature available on the internet to give an authoritative account of Haeckel which I suggest you read to get a more reasoned view of the situation, the best being “Fraud Not Proven” by RJ Richards. Haeckel was, however wrong, when he said “Ontology capitulates phylogeny” (which was disproven by other scientists).

    But are you saying that the embryo’s DON’T share similarities (which was the point Haeckel was trying to prove)?

    Regarding Darwin’s finches and the Pepper moths, are you suggesting that moths and finches DON’T change in response to their environment? I agree, the photo for the pepper moths that highlights the colour differences may have been staged, but does that change the fact that they DID actually change out in the real world?

    Do I care what is true? Yes. Though in some cases, I my care factor changes. Do I care that my car is running? Yes, very much so. Do I care what the President of the USA wrote on Twitter? No.

    But the question is, how do you verify that what you believe is true, and is what you believe to be true able to be verified by the best available evidence, especially if you’re not an expert in the field.

    This is where we need to heed the research of the people best-placed to find out. And it turns out that at least 98% of scientists accept the theory of evolution.

    But I do find it very strange that in all of the links at the end of your article that are critical of evolution, all of them share the same theology that you do. Do you have any links to atheists who are critical of the theory of evolution?

    You know, it is possible to accept evolution and be a Christian. There are plenty of people around who do it already!

    Anyway, yes, I am more than happy to have a pleasant back and forth if you are 🙂

    Stay safe and healthy in these upside-down times!


  2. Hi.

    I’m sorry, but you are completely wrong about evolution, as well as about cosmology, astrophysics and chemistry.

    I understand the theory of evolution may be uncomfortable to your interpretation of your religion, but you have to understand that evolution isn’t a religious issue.

    even Christians such as Dr. Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, or the Roman Catholic Church, have no problem with theistic evolution.

    Do you care if what you believe is true? If so, how do you verify that your beliefs are concordant with reality?




    1. Hi Damien, thanks for your comment.

      My problem with the theory of evolution isn’t based on whether or not it is uncomfortable to my interpretation of the Bible, my issue is that it is not based on scientific fact or evidence.

      I did not attempt to found my argument based on a “religious issue”, but rather an examination of the so-called evidence for the theory. And therefore whether or not the Catholic Church chooses to accept evolution has no bearing on whether or not I find it to be supported by evidence.

      Yes I do care if what I believe is true. Do you? Because the article above examined much of the evidence that is commonly used to teach the theory of evolution, such as Darwin’s finches, Haeckel’s embryos and peppered moths and showed it to be unreliable.

      If you would like to discuss any of the evidence I presented in the article, I would be happy to.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Website Built with WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: