By Hank Hanegraaff
Macro-evolution has been rightly called “a fairy tale for grownups,” but it is more rightly rendered a farce. It is not only patently improbable; it is plainly impossible. And as the acronym F-A-R-C-E makes plain, the arguments used to buttress the theory are astonishingly weak.
FOSSILS. While Darwin predicted hundreds of thousands of transitional forms leading to the fossils of the Cambrian Explosion—biology’s version of the Big Bang—none actually appear. And since Darwin’s time, the problem has only gotten worse. The fossil record has greatly expanded, yet all the body plans of animals that exist today appear in the Cambrian rocks. Darwin said it best: “The distinctiveness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links—is a very obvious difficulty.”
APE-MEN. The illustration of a knuckle-dragging ape evolving through a series of imaginary transitional forms into modern- day man has appeared so many times in so many places that the picture has evolved into the proof. In light of the fanfare attending recent candidates nominated to flesh out the icons of evolution, we would do well to remember that past candidates have bestowed fame on their finders but have done little to distinguish themselves as prime exemplars in the process of human evolution. The discovery of Darwinius masillae several years ago is a classic case in point. It was dubbed the most important fossil discovery in 47 million years. The “mother of all monkeys.” The scientific equivalent of discovering the Holy Grail. Like finding Noah’s ark. In actuality, it proved to be little more than an in-house debate among evolutionists as to whether Darwinius masillae was the ancestor of lemurs or monkeys. The reality is this: the distance between an ape, which cannot read or write, and a descendant of Adam, who can compose a musical masterpiece or send a man to the moon, is the distance of infinity.
RECAPITULATION. Recapitulation—better known by the evolutionary phrase ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny—is the notion that in the course of an embryo’s development (ontogeny), the embryo repeats (recapitulates) the evolutionary history of its species (phylogeny). Thus, at various points, an emerging human is said to be a fish, a frog, and then finally a fetus. In the words of evolutionary superstar Carl Sagan, “In human intrauterine development we run through stages very much like fish, reptiles, and non-primate mammals before we become recognizably human. The fish stage even has gill slits.” Without so much as blushing, he communicated his contention that a first-trimester abortion does not constitute the painful killing of a human fetus but merely the termination of a fish or frog. Thus, in Sagan’s world, Roe v. Wade provided the legal framework for the slaughter of multiplied millions of creatures rather than children. This idea, of course, is not science; it’s science fiction. For more than a century, it has been well known that what The Cosmos series creator referred to as “gill slits” are essential parts of human anatomy. French geneticist Jerome LeJeune said it best when testifying to a US Senate subcommittee: “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention; it is plain experimental evidence.”
CHANCE. One of the primary dilemmas of evolutionary theory is that it forces scientists to conclude that the cosmos—in all of its complexities—was created by chance. As biologist Jacques Monod, winner of the prestigious Nobel Prize, put it, “Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution.” Chance, in this sense, refers to that which happens without purpose. Thus, chance implies the absence of both a design and a designer. Reflect on the absurdity of such a notion. Giving the evolutionary process every imaginable concession, arranging a simple protein molecule by chance is estimated to be one chance in 10161 (that’s a 1 followed by 161 zeros). For a frame of reference, consider that there are only 1080 atoms in the entire known universe. If in time, a protein molecule was formed by chance, forming a second one would be infinitely more difficult. As such, the science of statistical probability underscores the stark reality that forming a protein molecule by random processes is not only improbable, it is impossible. And forming a cell or a chimp? Impossible beyond analogy.
EMPIRICAL SCIENCE. Rather than falling for the rhetoric and emotional stereotypes of modern-day evolutionists, lovers of truth must be united in their commitment to reason and empirical science. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that every effect must have a cause greater than or equal to itself. In stark contrast, evolutionary theory attempts to make effects, such as organized complexity, greater than their causes. Moreover, in an age of scientific enlightenment, it is implausible to contend that nothing could produce everything, that life could spring from non-life, and that the life that sprang from non-life could produce metaphysical realities such as ethics and morals. From a purely logical point of view, it should be self-evident that nothing comes from nothing—nothing ever could.
In sum, philosophical naturalism—the worldview under- girding evolutionism—can provide only three explanations for the existence of the universe in which we live. First, the universe is merely an illusion. Furthermore, the universe sprang from nothing. Finally, the universe eternally existed. There is, however, one other possibility: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” In an age of empirical science, nothing could be more certain, clear, or correct.
In part adapted from The Face That Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
John 1:3 NASB
For further study, see Hank Hanegraaff, Fatal Flaws: What Evolutionists Don’t Want You to Know (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008).
**Note the preceding text is adapted from a new Revised and Updated version of The Complete Bible Answer Book that is forthcoming. When available we will update this page with corresponding information. Until then you can still purchase or receive for your partnering gift the current version by clicking here for purchase or here for partnering gift. ***