First Baptist Church
Pastor's Corner Why Believe the Bible? Creation vs. Evolution Part 2 of 2 - July, 2009

“Why Believe the Bible?”

“Creation vs. Evolution”

(Pt. 2 of 2 - July, 2009)


Last month I continued our study of why we can believe in the Bible with a look at the basics of evolution vs. creation.  The reason I did, as I commented last month, was because “the creation account (Genesis 1-3) is one of the first places of attack when people don’t believe in the Bible; they will say “I don’t believe in a divine intelligent designer because it’s not scientific and everyone knows that science has proven the big bang and evolution.”  Oh really?  Have they indeed “proven” these things?  They absolutely have not.  Yet, if they can come to the conclusion that the Genesis account is not really true, then they can tear down the rest of Scripture.”  This is sad but true.

In any case, my objective was to give you several questions and the beginnings of answers to stimulate your thoughts on this very important subject[1] and then also to provide you with a list of resources for further study.  The first 4 questions were: 1) Is evolution a scientific fact that has been proven empirically (through observation and experience) and logically by scientific method; i.e.: has it been scientifically proven that life is really a product of a material universe that came into being by random chance and accident?  2) How did life begin?  3) Why did life begin?  4) How did various plants and animals develop?  5) Which theory between evolution and creation best explains the fossil record? 

  If you missed the last issue (June) please stop by the office and we’ll give you a copy.  Now we continue on in our questions:


6.      What theory best explains our most recent biological studies? 


When Darwin looked at a single cell (the simplest form of life) through a microscope of his day (200-300x), what he saw he described as a cell with a membrane, nucleus and the nucleus was filled with what looked like clear fluid and that was about it.  It looked very simple.  Darwin believed that the formation of life started out simple and grew more complex and that if it could be proven otherwise, then his whole theory would fall apart. 

Guess what modern science has proven?  The single cell that Darwin thought was so simple is actually astoundingly complex!  Even with our super computers of today, we still don’t completely understand it and cannot duplicate it.  We do know this, single cell organisms are more like high-tech factories with artificial language and decoding systems; they have central memory banks that store and retrieve impressive amounts of information; they have precision control systems that regulate the automatic assembly of their components; they have proof reading and even quality control programs that safe-guard against errors; they have assembly systems that use principles of pre-fabrication and modular construction as well as a complete replication system that allows the cell to duplicate itself with amazing speed (did you get all that?!).[2]  In addition, for a single cell to come to life, 445 amino acids would have to accidentally line up perfectly, not just once, but 239 times to form 29 proteins that would make a living cell.  Friends, the probability of having 10 pennies in your pocket, each one marked from 1-10 and then pulling them out in sequential order, 1, 2, 3, etc. is 1 in 10 billion!

Even Carl Sagan believed that the probability of evolution occurring, life from non-life was 10 to the 2 billionth power!!  Probability experts say that anything 10 to the 15th power is virtually impossible and anything 10 to the 50th power is impossible![3]

In addition, the single cell is filled with DNA which, in itself, can have millions of component parts.  They are also arranged in a very specific sequence.  DNA is like the computer software of a cell; it’s what allows it to work, grow and replicate.  ,If spelled out in English, the genetic information in the DNA of a microscopic single cell organism would equal an entire volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica.  Mind you the human body has an estimated 100 trillion cells!

Truly, a simple cell is not simple at all but astoundingly intricate and the notion that non-living matter could have come together by random chance and created this amazing life form is not just far fetched but very inadequate as an explanation for how life began, or as Darwin believed, that life went from simple to complex.  Evolutionist and world class expert on the chemistry of DNA, Dr. Robert Shapiro has commented that the odds of DNA being formed by random process is “none, its nonsense.”[4]  Discoverer of DNA, Dr. Francis Crick has said that he is convinced that life could not have evolved on this planet from non-life.[5]

The belief that an intelligent designer had to have been behind all of creation, especially when considering such biological wonders as the complexities of a single cell, is, even for secular minds, a much more plausible theory.  Likewise, what’s really interesting is that while some of these secular scientists are coming to this conclusion, that life cannot come from non-life and evolution is not so plausible, not all of them are turning toward an intelligent designer as the next option.  Instead they are coming up with new theories of how life was brought to earth from somewhere else in the universe.  Really?!  But how did it start there?  Some say it came from a meteorite and some say from crystals and I’m sure there is a host of other “theories.”


7.      Which theory has had the greatest social and/or moral benefit to mankind?


Simply put, the natural consequences of Darwinism promotes “self” in that if we live in a merely material world and there is no reason for us being here, that is, we are here solely by random chance and natural selection, then we would have no thought or concern towards others and would only do what was pleasing to ourselves.  Chip Ingrim calls it the “sovereignty of self.”  There would be no moral absolutes, no right and wrong, no sense of justice, yet isn’t it interesting that we all have some sense of these things?  The Bible even tells us so much in Rom. 1.  The sexual revolution of the 60’s said that people can do whatever they want and its okay.  Funny how std’s and even AIDS was not far behind this way of thinking.  

Racism including Nazism as well as the battle of the sexes is also a natural conclusion of Darwinism in that if we are all animals and natural selection is occurring (the survival of the fittest) and the best of a species becomes dominant (and we are just another species), then there is no room for the weak and/or disabled, etc.; all those inferior to the dominant or “best” species should be weeded out and gotten rid of to make way for the superior of the species, the best of the species.  Isn’t this what Hitler believed and why he was exterminating different groups and races of people?  Hitler was a disciple of Charles Darwin!  Even Darwin himself believed the white race to be the more civilized race and that other “lesser” races would eventually be eliminated.[6]  In regards to men and women, Darwin also believed that males attain to a higher eminence in whatever they take up over women.[7]

Of course the Bible says otherwise; that in Christ, we all have equality and value.  Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  Women are men’s co-heirs of the grace of life (1 Pet. 3:7)!

Think about it, how many Darwinists do you meet at a funeral?  It sure seems that when tragedy strikes and death comes about, suddenly its, “Well they’re in a better place…”  Not for the evolutionist who believes that life is only material and came about by random chance.  There would be no such thing as a soul, spirit or afterlife for people who evolved from some kind of primordial soup, solely by random chance.  A soul, spirit, and afterlife presuppose an intelligent designer.  So from primordial ooze they came and back to primordial ooze they will go.  


8.      Which theory reflects most accurately the laws of empirical (observable/experiential) science?  


It seems that science is based on the presupposition of the harmony, orderliness and predictability of the universe, not time+chance+randomness.  We have come up with amazing mathematical formulas based on the orderliness and predictability of the universe!  Science heavyweights like Leonardo DaVinci, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Francis Bacon, Michael Faraday and Albert Einstein all believed in the Biblical creation account over evolution.[8] 

Consider cause and effect.  The evolutionist would have you believe there was an effect without a cause as life originated from no-life.  If a cell has life, it had to come from somewhere.  Some would say it came from some ‘primordial soup,’ but where did this come from?  And the circle continues. 

Also, evolution violates the first law of thermo-dynamics which basically says that matter cannot be created or destroyed yet that is exactly what is going on in evolution as energy is being created.[9]   The second law of thermodynamics has to do with “entropy” and is also violated with evolution.  This says (in a most basic nutshell) that things in the universe don’t go from worse to better, but from better to worse; from order to chaos.  Evolution says the opposite, from worse to better, chaos to order.

Again folks, I recognize this is only the tip of the iceberg and I hope it might ignite some sparks in you to study further and do your own research, always starting with the truth of the Scriptures.  Friends, I hope you’ve been able to start to understand that Darwinism is not just a theory but a religion; a religion that has removed God and replaced Him with “self.”  This is exactly what Paul described in Romans 1:18-25…


18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. 24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen (Rom. 1:18-25).


Resources for Further Study:


The Facts on Creation vs. Evolution by John Ankerberg & John Weldon (Great little booklet - short and concise)

Beans, Daniel (Our in-house creation expert!  Seriously, folks.)

Darwin’s Black Box by Michael J. Behe (A refutation of Darwin and his theory)

Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin  (Let Darwin and his theory speak for itself)The Answers Book 1&2  Ken Hamm, General Editor

Why I Believe in Creation Pts. 1&2 Audio message by Chip Ingrim 

Battle For the Beginning by John MacArthur

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science by Henry Morris

The Genesis Record by Henry Morris

Coming to Grips with Genesis Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury, Editors

Evolution Exposed by Roger Patterson



Expelled (documentary movie with Ben Stein – really excellent!)


Christian Websites with a Biblical Worldview: (Ken Hamm’s - Answers in Genesis) (Institute for Creation Research) (Chip Ingram’s - Living On The Edge)



[1] This article’s main points follow that of Chip Ingram’s message entitled Why I Believe in Creation Pts.1 and 2.

[2] Michael J. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box.

[3] Per Ingram’s Why I Believe in Creation Pt. 2

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Per Ingram’s Why I Believe in Creation Pt. 2

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.