S
Strykerdcm12
Guest
Biblically evolution cannot be correct…here is why.
When God made the world he made it free of death, before Adam and Eve sinned there was no sin, no evil, therefore no death. When Adam and Eve ate the apple sin entered into the world, and death came along with it. Initially it was Adam and Eve’s spiritual death and separation from God, but eventually it was their physical deaths. If they had not sinned they would have lived physically with God forever in the Garden of Eden and human kind could have stayed in God’s presence because we would have been perfect and righteous.
Evolution, and it’s mechanism, natural selection, depend on death to function. Without death natural selection could not exist because it uses death as the great equalizer. Natural selection says that those animals that are best adapted to the environment will survive and reproduce the most. In other words, those animals that are best adapted to survive and reproduce will survive and reproduce the most. That kind of logic is called a tautology, which basically means it is self evident, and when Darwin came up with the theory he was just stating the obvious, and the reason it was such a successful theory is that no one had ever seen that tautology as a possible explanation for the diversity of life.
So to sum up my point, biblically there was no death before the fall. If you are going to take a biblical evolutionary perspective, the evolution of species must have occurred before the fall, because biblically the fall was only around 6,000 years ago (not nearly long enough time for evolution to have produced all of the species present on Earth today). But evolution and natural selection depend on death, and according to the Bible there was no death before the fall (and their couldn’t have been because there was no sin or evil and therefore no death because death is inherently evil (hell is the eternal “death”, or by believing in Jesus we will not perish or “die” -John 3:16)). So basically evolution as atheists and agnostics see it (from chemicals to bacteria to humans) does not fit with a biblical world view.
Now you have to ask the question, which one is right, evolution or the Bible? Well, microevolution (the small mutations that make organisms better adapted to survive WITHIN A SINGLE SPECIES) has been scientifically proven, but microevolution fits within the biblical world view because it does not try to say that we evolved from bacteria and chemicals, it merely says that generations within one species will gradually be better adapted to survive. Macroevolution is where the disagreement lies. Macroevolution is the claim biologists make when they say we evolved from bacteria. They claim that body building genes (genes that control multiple other genes), can be mutated, and therefore cause a large mutation in the structure of the organism. The chances of having a successful mutation that would actually help the organism and make it more able to survive is very minimal, and despite years of experimentation science has yet to prove that macroevolution is even biologically possible. There have been experiments that switch different organisms’ body building genes and observe the results, but none have been able to prove macroevolution. There are debates on whether macroevolution is even biochemically possible. And if it isn’t biochemically possible, there is certainly no way it could work at all.
There are multiple creationist views that do not contradict the Bible. Two main ones come to mind. First is the most popular and debated, the young earth creationism. This is a literal translation of Genesis, in that God created the world literally in six, 24 hour days. The other is the day-age theory. This says that the six days in Genesis were not literal, and stood for periods of time. This theory accounts for problems the young earth theory runs into such as light from distant stars not having enough time to travel to earth if earth is only 6,000 years old. Another such problem is carbon dating and fossils, although carbon dating is flawed in it’s concept (I am not going to take time to explain it here, you can google it if you are interested, or see the book list at the end of the post). Even though the young earth theory runs into a couple problems, there are still many prominent theologians that use science to prove the young earth theory possible.
Sorry for all the babble, but I am very concerned about evolution as a theory and a threat to Christianity. I personally know and have heard of people who have gone from theism to agnosticism or atheism because of the evidences for evolution. I will say, there are many compelling evidences for evolution, but all of those evidences can also be used to support creationism. The reason evolution seems so much more probable is it is currently much more mainstream, and you would be hard pressed to find a knowledgeable and well known scientist who affirms biblical creationism. I am also worried when some Christians give into evolution because it just seems easier to go with the flow, or it is much more difficult to get people to see a Christian world view when you disagree on the fundamental origins of life and its diversity.
I want you to know that there are many strong, scientific, and logical arguments out there against evolution and for a biblical creationism. I can point you to two books I’ve enjoyed: The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel (Strobel interviews different professionals in their respective fields surrounding creationism and evolution and shows that there are many strong arguments against evolution) and Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson (Johnson examines evolutions main arguments and puts together counter-arguments as to why the original arguments are flawed).
Thanks for reading, and if you are interested, please do pick up one or both of those books and learn more about evolution and creationism.
When God made the world he made it free of death, before Adam and Eve sinned there was no sin, no evil, therefore no death. When Adam and Eve ate the apple sin entered into the world, and death came along with it. Initially it was Adam and Eve’s spiritual death and separation from God, but eventually it was their physical deaths. If they had not sinned they would have lived physically with God forever in the Garden of Eden and human kind could have stayed in God’s presence because we would have been perfect and righteous.
Evolution, and it’s mechanism, natural selection, depend on death to function. Without death natural selection could not exist because it uses death as the great equalizer. Natural selection says that those animals that are best adapted to the environment will survive and reproduce the most. In other words, those animals that are best adapted to survive and reproduce will survive and reproduce the most. That kind of logic is called a tautology, which basically means it is self evident, and when Darwin came up with the theory he was just stating the obvious, and the reason it was such a successful theory is that no one had ever seen that tautology as a possible explanation for the diversity of life.
So to sum up my point, biblically there was no death before the fall. If you are going to take a biblical evolutionary perspective, the evolution of species must have occurred before the fall, because biblically the fall was only around 6,000 years ago (not nearly long enough time for evolution to have produced all of the species present on Earth today). But evolution and natural selection depend on death, and according to the Bible there was no death before the fall (and their couldn’t have been because there was no sin or evil and therefore no death because death is inherently evil (hell is the eternal “death”, or by believing in Jesus we will not perish or “die” -John 3:16)). So basically evolution as atheists and agnostics see it (from chemicals to bacteria to humans) does not fit with a biblical world view.
Now you have to ask the question, which one is right, evolution or the Bible? Well, microevolution (the small mutations that make organisms better adapted to survive WITHIN A SINGLE SPECIES) has been scientifically proven, but microevolution fits within the biblical world view because it does not try to say that we evolved from bacteria and chemicals, it merely says that generations within one species will gradually be better adapted to survive. Macroevolution is where the disagreement lies. Macroevolution is the claim biologists make when they say we evolved from bacteria. They claim that body building genes (genes that control multiple other genes), can be mutated, and therefore cause a large mutation in the structure of the organism. The chances of having a successful mutation that would actually help the organism and make it more able to survive is very minimal, and despite years of experimentation science has yet to prove that macroevolution is even biologically possible. There have been experiments that switch different organisms’ body building genes and observe the results, but none have been able to prove macroevolution. There are debates on whether macroevolution is even biochemically possible. And if it isn’t biochemically possible, there is certainly no way it could work at all.
There are multiple creationist views that do not contradict the Bible. Two main ones come to mind. First is the most popular and debated, the young earth creationism. This is a literal translation of Genesis, in that God created the world literally in six, 24 hour days. The other is the day-age theory. This says that the six days in Genesis were not literal, and stood for periods of time. This theory accounts for problems the young earth theory runs into such as light from distant stars not having enough time to travel to earth if earth is only 6,000 years old. Another such problem is carbon dating and fossils, although carbon dating is flawed in it’s concept (I am not going to take time to explain it here, you can google it if you are interested, or see the book list at the end of the post). Even though the young earth theory runs into a couple problems, there are still many prominent theologians that use science to prove the young earth theory possible.
Sorry for all the babble, but I am very concerned about evolution as a theory and a threat to Christianity. I personally know and have heard of people who have gone from theism to agnosticism or atheism because of the evidences for evolution. I will say, there are many compelling evidences for evolution, but all of those evidences can also be used to support creationism. The reason evolution seems so much more probable is it is currently much more mainstream, and you would be hard pressed to find a knowledgeable and well known scientist who affirms biblical creationism. I am also worried when some Christians give into evolution because it just seems easier to go with the flow, or it is much more difficult to get people to see a Christian world view when you disagree on the fundamental origins of life and its diversity.
I want you to know that there are many strong, scientific, and logical arguments out there against evolution and for a biblical creationism. I can point you to two books I’ve enjoyed: The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel (Strobel interviews different professionals in their respective fields surrounding creationism and evolution and shows that there are many strong arguments against evolution) and Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson (Johnson examines evolutions main arguments and puts together counter-arguments as to why the original arguments are flawed).
Thanks for reading, and if you are interested, please do pick up one or both of those books and learn more about evolution and creationism.
Rob
so maybe there is more recent data that has confirmed or falsified this. I will look for something more recent if you’d like. Personally I like reading about the evolution of cute animals though not bugs lol. 
