Bible Teaching

 

Spiritual Alternatives

 

Current Issues

 

Deception in the Church

 

Europe

 

Islam

 

Israel & Middle East

 

Jesus the Messiah

 

Moral Issues

 

One World System

 

One World Religion

 

Persecution

 

Science & Evolution

Bible Teachings
Alternatives
CurrentIssues
Deception
Europe
Islam
Israel&ME
Jesus
Morals
System
Religion
Persecution
Science

Topics Menu

We are a Christian Fellowship meeting in North London with a strong interest in teaching the Bible and understanding our time in

the light of Bible prophecy

Home
About Us
Beliefs
Meetings
Location
Articles
Resources
Contact
Bridge Lane
Vimeo

Darwin was right

T

... when he wrote that: 'to suppose that the eye could have been formed by

natural selection (evolution) seems absurd in the highest possible degree.'

 

Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins, who believes that Darwin's theory of

evolution has the answer to all nature's complexities, is not daunted by

this admission of his mentor. In his book, 'Climbing Mount Improbable', he

agrees with Darwin that there are difficulties in believing in the evolution

of the eye: 'An eye is made up of a large number of parts arranged in a very

special way. The number of possible ways in which those parts could have

been arranged comes to a stupefyingly large number. Moreover, of all the

trillions of possible arrangements of the parts of an eye, only a tiny

minority would see.'

 

To answer this possible objection to the theory of evolution, Dawkins argues

that, 'It is not difficult for rudimentary lens-like objects to come into

existence spontaneously. Any old lump of half-way transparent jelly need

only assume a curved shape (there are all sorts of reasons why it might) and

it will immediately confer at least a slight improvement on a simple cup or

pinhole. Lenses might have evolved in the first place from a vitreous mass

that filled the whole eye.' According to calculations made by Swedish

biologists he says that 'it would only take about 364,000 generations to

evolve a good fish eye with a lens.'

 

Even if you accept this unlikely scenario, it does not tell us how long it

would take to evolve a good human eye or how these blind or half blind

creatures managed to stumble around for millions of years while they evolved

their eyes. Nor does it tell us how something as wonderful and complex as

the eye could have come together by chance, when all the evidence of the

natural world is that left to themselves things become more random and

disorganised, not more complex and developed (the Second Law of

Thermodynamics).

 

Just as wonderful and complex as the eye is the reproductive system of

different species. This raises an even more serious question for

evolutionists. Species which reproduce sexually require a separate

development of the male and the female form, which have to come together to

produce the next generation. The problem for evolution is that there is no

possibility of 364,000 generations to make this development. In fact there

is not even the possibility of two generations. If the reproductive system

is not functioning perfectly there is only one generation of the evolving species.

 

Consider the complexity and diversity of the reproductive systems of birds,

bees, butterflies, frogs, fish, kangaroos, whales and humans, just to give a

few examples. Regarding human reproduction consider the process of puberty,

male attraction to the female, the sexual union itself, the fertilisation of

the female egg by the male sperm, the development of the unborn child in the

womb, the birth process and the feeding of the new born child with the

mother's milk. All these factors are incredibly complex and absolutely vital

to the survival of the species. If any aspect of this amazing process is not

functioning perfectly, there is no reproduction possible and therefore no

new generations and no evolution.

 

It makes far more sense to believe Genesis 1 that God instantly created

fully developed and sexually mature creatures of 'distinct kinds', each able

to reproduce 'after their own kind.' All such 'kinds' of creatures, such as

'dog-kind' and 'cat-kind', do have the genetic potential to produce limited

variation within their own 'kind'. This ties up with what we can observe in

nature. Usually a dog mates with another dog, although very occasionally a

dog may interbreed with say a wolf. A dog never mates with a cat!

 

The fossil record too is what we should expect from created 'kinds'. All

types appear distinct and there are no genuine transitional forms, to prove

gradual evolution of say cats and dogs or their evolution from reptiles. All

the missing links are still missing. So evolutionists have now come up with

a new idea called 'Punctuated Equilibrium.' By this they mean that there

were millions of years when there was little or no evolution taking place

(equilibrium). This period of equilibrium was punctuated by short bursts of

intense evolutionary activity, producing the development of new species

(though why these bursts of activity should have taken place remains a

mystery). It is claimed that these bursts happened so quickly on the

geological time scale that little or no fossil evidence was left in the

rocks. Very convenient!

 

This idea has been seized upon by the New Age movement with people saying

that a great leap forward in the evolutionary process is about to take

place. This is described as the 'Quantum leap' into the New Age in which an

elite of spiritually enlightened persons will discover their 'godhood' and

develop extraordinary psychic powers. Those who resist this process will

fail to survive the 'paradigm shift' into the New Age. In this 'spiritual

survival of the fittest' they will be 'sent to other worlds to rethink their

attitudes', while the New Age elite rule and reign in a 'millennium of love

and light.'

 

The reality is that our generation which has denied God as the Creator is

busy destroying his creation by polluting the earth and wiping out millions

of its life forms. As a result it is unlikely that we will survive long into

the next millennium unless God intervenes to save us from destruction.

Mankind is also tampering with the natural form of reproduction in ways

which are extremely harmful to the future of life on earth. One of the worst

abuses is the worldwide use of abortion as a means of disposing of unwanted

pregnancies. An estimated 40,000,000 babies a year are killed in the womb.

 

Other alarming developments are in the area of genetic engineering. The

Daily Mail (7th March 1996) featured the cloning of sheep, born to different

mothers but genetically identical, cloned from one embryo. The scientists

responsible say their technique could be used to ease food problems or fight

disease. The paper raises the 'nightmare prospect, that in the wrong hands,

such knowledge could be a major step towards creating a human master race.'

Another alarming experiment involves the possibility of treating male

infertility by growing human sperm in mice. Add all this to the use of

animal organs in human transplants and we see how science is developing

techniques in which human beings are playing at God. This is another reason

why we believe that our civilisation is coming to an end. As at the Tower of

Babel, God has to intervene to put an end to human progress because 'nothing

they plan to do will be impossible for them.' (Genesis 11.6).

 

The Psalmist showed more wisdom than most of the 'great minds' of our

generation when he wrote:

 

"O Lord you have searched me and known me. ... for you have formed me in my

inward parts; You have covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise you for

I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvellous are your works, and that my

soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was made in

secret." Psalm 139:1,13-15

T