Evolution and Bible cannot mix

Christian leaders across denominations have compromised with Darwinian evolutionary theory, which has caused havoc of faith for millions. Many Christian leaders argue that God used evolution to create all life. This position is neither biblical nor scientific and opens the door for utter ridicule and disrespect. If Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory is true then any belief in God is nothing more than blind faith because God is not necessary for the process.

Evolution and Bible cannot mix. 47092.jpeg

The Bible teaches that God began with a perfect creation where there was no suffering and death. There was death of plant life but not life possessing "soul" (i.e. animals and humans). There was even perfect peace and harmony between animals. There were no meat-eating animals in the beginning (Genesis 1:30). Animal and human death did not occur until after man sinned. There was no struggle and survival-of-the-fittest among animals or man in the beginning. Man and all creation, which was placed under man, fell to imperfection, struggle, suffering, and death because of the sin of Adam and Eve, mankind's first parents. All this is opposite to what Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory teaches. Unlike the Bible, the theory of evolution teaches the world was never perfect and the animal kingdom always existed with struggle and suffering and death (extinction). Scripture teaches these conditions came into being after the fall of man - not before!

You cannot mix Darwinian macro-evolution and the Bible. To say God used evolution to create man is in direct contradiction to the doctrine of the Fall of Man because the process of evolution involves struggle, pain, suffering, and death. God did not begin with these or with half-evolved fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, etc. God created a perfect world with complete, fully-functioning, and fully-formed species from the very beginning (i.e. complete fish, complete amphibians, complete reptiles, complete birds, complete mammals, etc.). How could a partially-evolved species survive anyway? It would be unfit for survival. Survival-of-the-fittest wouldn't allow for partially-evolved species with partially-evolved tissues, organs, and biological functions and structures to survive!

More and more evolutionary scientists are abandoning the theory of gradual macro-evolution and are adopting a new theory, "Punctuated Equilibrium" which teaches that life forms changed suddenly, not gradually, by chance from one kind to another as a result of massive random genetic mutations caused by massive random radiation from the environment.

The reason for this big change among evolutionists is because they realize that species cannot survive in a partially evolved state with incomplete traits, tissues, organs, and body functions. A reptile with scales in the process of turning to feathers would not have the function of either trait.

The problem with punctuated equilibria, however, is that it is contrary to what we know about the nature of mutations and radiation. Punctuated equilibrium is nothing more than blind faith.

In Genesis 1, God says 10 different times that all living things must reproduce after their own "kind," not into other kinds! A dog must reproduce a dog. Different varieties of dogs are possible genetically, but they will all still be dogs and not something else.

God placed within the "kinds" the genetic ability for variation and change to adapt to changing environments, but this is not the same as evolution from one kind into another kind as Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory teaches.

All the biological similarities between species are because of a common Designer (God) Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life, not because of a common ancestry as evolutionists teach.

Many often wonder how all the varieties or "races" of people could come from the same original human ancestors. Well, in principle, that's no different than asking how children with different color hair (i.e. blond, brunette, brown, red) can come from the same parents who both have black hair. Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, humanity's first parents, Adam and Eve, possessed genes to produce all the variety and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but humanity's first parents did possess such genes.

All real evolution in nature is limited and is nothing more than an expression, over time, of already existing genes within a biological "kind". For example, you may be a tall person carrying genes for producing short people that won't be expressed in your descendents until generations later.

Many people have wrong ideas about evolution. For example, in November of 2004, articles appeared in major U.S. newspapers saying that running may have contributed to the evolution of man.

The simple fact is that physical traits and characteristics are determined and passed on by genes - not by running or any other form of exercise. Traits or characteristics which are acquired from the environment simply cannot be passed on to offspring (i.e. a woman who loses her finger will not cause her baby to be born with a missing finger; changing the color and texture of your hair will not affect the color and texture of your children's hair. Even if an ape ever did learn to walk and run upright it still would not be able to pass on this trait to its offspring. Only the changes that occur in the genes (genetic information) of reproductive cells (i.e. sperm and egg) can be passed on to offspring. That is a simple fact of biology.

What about mutations? Mutations only produce more variations of already existing genes. For example, mutations in the gene(s) for human hair may change the gene(s) so that another type of human hair develops, but it'll still be human hair!

Because mutations are accidents in the genetic code, caused by radiation and other environmental forces, they're almost always harmful. Most biological variations are from new combinations of already existing genes and not mutations. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one there would thousands of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, leading to the extinction of a species - not its progressive evolution!

What about natural selection? Natural selection doesn't produce biological traits. Natural selection only "selects" from what is produced. It's a passive process. If a biological variation occurs that helps a species survive in its environment then that species will survive (be "selected").

Genetic information, like other forms of information, doesn't happen by chance. That's why we have genetic engineering!

What about "Junk" DNA? The latest science shows that "Junk DNA" isn't junk after all! It's we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature has revealed that the "non-coding" segments of DNA are essential in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed) and various important intracellular activities. Just because these segments of DNA don't code for proteins doesn't mean that they don't code for anything else!

Because of Christ's death to pay for our sins and His resurrection from the grave, God will one day restore the earth to its original perfection!

What about the fossils, the age of the earth, and other evolutionary issues? These issues are covered at the author's website www.religionscience.com and also there are many excellent articles supporting creation and refuting macro-evolution written by Master's and Ph.D degreed scientists which may be accessed at the Institute for Creation Research site www.icr.org. Go to their site and just type in the "Search" box your topic of interest and the relevant articles will come up.

Other helpful sites are: www.creationscience.com, www.AnswersInGenesis.org, and www.ChristianAnswers.net.

The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, has his bachelor's degree with concentrations in theology and biology and has been recognized for his writings on religion and science in the 24^th edition of Marquis "Who's Who In The East".