For well over a century, Evolution has been entrenched in our culture. For as long as anyone can remember, it has been taught in schools, published in science books, even creatively delivered in annoying songs in children's shows. It's literally unavoidable now, being taken for granted to the extent where authors just insert it where it doesn't belong.
Because of this, most people don't even question it, and when we do, it is guaranteed to confuse people. Rejecting Evolution is like denying gravity, right? It's just basic science. You can't understand the world without it, or so the story goes.
But as shown in the header image, gravity is demonstrable. With minimal man-made technology, any human being, anywhere in the world, can demonstrate gravity. You can do it right now. Stand up, jump, see where you end up. Or pick something up, then drop it, see what happens. Inevitably, every time you test gravity, it will prove true right before your very eyes.
Although some experiments may require more complex technology, more technical know how, more preparation etc., this is generally how science works. A theory is posited, then repeatable experiments are conducted, yielding observable results.
This cannot be done with Evolution. No human being, with any amount of technology, has ever conducted an experiment by which Evolution can be demonstrated, nor could they. But because Evolution is so ingrained in our culture, most people believe it not only can be tested, but has been so many times.
A major reason for this is that along with our indoctrination into Evolution, we have also been lied to about what it even is. We all "know" human beings are descendants of ape-like creatures (also known as apes...), but that is a really big change that happened over millions of years, via small changes over successive generations. According to the mythology, Evolution is a gradual process. And we see these small changes!
Of course, for as long as humans have been humans, we have never seen humans "evolving" into anything other than humans. In fact, we have never seen anything evolve into anything. In spite of our long history of domesticating countless plants and animals, we have never seen fundamental changes. We've bred dogs into dogs. We've bred cats into cats. Sheep, pig, cow, horse, goat, we have bred all of these into many varieties, but not once have they become anything different than what they fundamentally are.
And for Evolution, that is a very big problem. See, it doesn't take a biologist to distinguish between a man and a monkey. It takes a biologist to come up with creative ways to confuse the two, but the simple fact that we keep one in zoos while we fight for the freedom of the other shows that we all instinctively know the difference. Further back in time, we are also said to be descendants of small, rodent-like mammals, amphibians, fish, right the way back to this single, magic microbe, which appeared out of nowhere. But all of these things are quite different from we who are supposedly descended from them.
Because the differences between supposedly related organisms are so radical, it is simply insufficient to say the small changes we observe are equivalent to the astronomical changes we have not. This is what is known as the fallacy of equivocation: The use of ambiguous language to mislead.
In 1965, an Evolutionist named Gerald Kerkut wrote a book entitled "Implications of Evolution". Here, he summed this problem up almost perfectly: "There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place."
Of course, there is a little in there with which I disagree, starting with the simple fact that in order to completely eradicate the confusion, what Kerkut calls the "special theory of Evolution", I simply do not call Evolution. Instead, what he calls the "general theory of Evolution", I just call "Evolution". That is what Evolution has been from the start.
See, the so-called "special theory of Evolution" is nothing new. Long before Darwin, Creationists such as Edward Blyth, wrote about this topic. Even before Blyth, ironically, we can look to Scripture itself to describe variety within created kinds. One need only look at the simple fact that humanity began with just two people, and that God "...made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings," (Acts 17:26). Yet in the time this was written, humanity had been so divided into nations that one could easily recognise which people belonged to which group. Even racism had appeared! Moses was criticised for his Egyptian wife.
So, clearly, variation within kinds is both a Biblical and ancient concept that in no way conflicts with the actual, Edenic origin of the human race. In real history, God created the heavens and the Earth in 6 days, creating each plant and creature according to its kind, to reproduce according to its kind. Humans produce humans, and the only living creature to ever produce a human is... a human. Dogs produce dogs, and the only living creature to ever produce dogs is... a dog. And so on and so forth.
Because it is both a Biblical and historically recognised concept, it is at the very least plausible to scientifically show how changes happen via successive generations. It's simple. Get a pair of dogs, let them do their thing, and in less than 70 days, you will have a variety of puppies that likely look very different from both parents. You may even be able to breed different breeds. These days, cross-breeding is very popular.
In fact, it's so popular, scientists even do it with more exotic creatures. Zebras and donkeys can produce zonkeys. Lions and tigers produce tigons and ligers (depending on which cat is the mother and which is the father). There is even such a thing as a wholphin.
But there's a limit. Breed a lion and a tiger, you get a liger. Breed a man and a monkey, you get arrested. See, even with species we know are related, there comes a point when cross breeding becomes impossible. So, how might one go about proving Kerkut's "general theory of Evolution"? As he rightly points out, "...the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis". But I reject his assumption that "The answer will be found in future experimental work...", because aside from the fact there are no experiments one could use to demonstrate Evolution, any such experiment would take longer than the Lord will likely allow this Earth to endure.
But perhaps the worst thing about Kerkut's statement is that he believed nothing else will satisfactorily take the place of Evolution. Creationism, in my not so humble opinion, is a vastly superior belief. I do not say "theory", for the same reason I do not speak of the theory of the Wright Brothers. That's just who made the first plane. We don't look to science to figure out the origin of the plane, we look to history. Science is how we figure out how to make better planes in the future, or at the very least better understand the ones we have.
Much like the origins of the plane, the origins of the heavens, the Earth, and everything in them, is an issue of history. For that reason, we cannot scientifically test it. Instead, it's better to look at the historical record. Of course, unless you count God and the angels, no one was actually around to watch the creation of the heavens and the Earth. However, human beings have been capable of writing things down for quite some time now.
Conveniently, "recorded history" coincides quite nicely with the Bible. It does not do so perfectly, of course, nor would we expect it to. However, going by the Evolutionary reckoning, 99% of human history has been lost, because even though modern man has existed for at least 550,000 years, we didn't invent writing systems until approximately 6,000 years ago. A more believable "theory" is that modern man appeared roughly 6,000 years ago, but our history is just a little jumbled up because things decay over time.
We do have some rather impressive records. From seemingly insignificant items, like a 1st century written complaint about a sub-standard copper delivery, right up to eyewitness testimony, like... the Bible.
Although the Bible contains many accounts of things that happened both prior to the birth of the author, and that would happen after (it's called "prophecy", but that's a discussion for another article), many of the events it describes were actually experienced by the author. Moses genuinely lived through the Exodus. Joshua genuinely took part in the conquest of Canaan. Nehemiah is even written in first person. Most importantly, the entire New Testament was written by eyewitnesses and contemporaries of Jesus.
This is important, because it means Christianity is a well documented faith. We have a greater insight into the life of Jesus than for other historical figures, like Julius Caesar. Most significantly, unless we go with absurd conspiracy theories like Him being an alien, or having a secret twin brother, or even Swoon Theory, we known that Jesus lived, died, and rose.
Because Jesus proved His complete dominion over death itself, we can take His claims to be the Creator seriously. This not only gives us the right to completely discard silly myths like Evolution, but astonishingly, it even makes us more than just insignificant observers. We get to have a relationship with the Creator Himself.
Of course, as the creations, we always did. But God didn't just make us and sit us on a shelf like some ornament. We were created for one purpose: Eternal fellowship with Him. Yet, we failed that purpose, actively rebelling against Him in ways He cannot simply forgive. In fact, all rebellion against God is called "sin", and it merits His everlasting wrath. How, then, are we spared this?
When Jesus died, it was no accident. Every last detail was meticulously planned from before the very first sin. When Jesus died, He took your punishment. Therefore, by confessing Him as Lord, and believing He rose from the dead, you can be spared the wrath owed for your sin, instead receiving a restored relationship with your Creator, and an everlasting inheritance in His Kingdom.