Why the Crusades are justified

Is there a Divine Creator? That has been the question debated by Mankind since the beginning of time. As Christians, we know that God has made everything with His mighty hands. In the 19th century, a theory was proposed by Charles Darwin that would change the outlook on life forever. Darwin proposed that there was no Creator at all. Perhaps we have “evolved” into the creatures we are today from a common ancestor. This topic is very important because the view of our origins can shape a whole societies’ outlook. Philip E. Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial, said this, “"I am interested in what unbiased science has to tell us about the history of life, and in particular how the enormously complex organs of plants and animals came into existence. What is important is not whether we call this process 'evolution,' but how much we really know about it. The argument of Darwin on Trial is that we know a great deal less than has been claimed.” I believe this quote sums up what people believe and what they want to know about the origin of life. Charles Darwin’s theory ‘On the Origin of Species’ is logically incorrect and needs to be exposed for its poor scientific and religious beliefs.
Before I dive into Darwin’s theories, I find it crucial to define a few terms before I begin in order to avoid any confusion. The first term is the difference between macroevolution and microevolution. Macroevolution is the event of large-scale changes over a long period of time that result in a new species. Microevolution is the evolution of small-scale changes that happen over a long period of time that simply modify the creature. The next term is natural selection. Natural selection is the process by which individuals that are better suited to their environment survive and reproduce most successfully. Natural Selection is also known as survival of the fittest. I will use these terms later in my essay.
Page 2
It only makes logical sense to start at the beginning of Darwin’s theory; The origin of life. How did the first cells come into being? Evolutionists have been trying to prove this point ever since the theory came into being. Darwin had failed to prove this point in his book when he said “The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic” (Charles Darwin Quotes 1). According to dictionary.com, an agnostic is someone who holds the existence of God and the nature of things as unknown and unknowable. Darwin is saying that he is an agnostic in this certain question; he is not sure what to believe. As Christians, we know that God made everything that we can and can’t see. We have the Bible where God explains how He made us all and everything in the world. So in this case, the Divine Creator side has a point for the beginning of life. But, what does the evolutionary side have? Well the only theory that evolution has is in the Miller-Urey experiment.
The Miller-Urey experiment was conducted at the University of Chicago in 1952. This experiment was trying to simulate the conditions of primitive Earth and how amino acids, the building blocks for life, could have been possibly formed with no divine intervention. Originally, this experiment seemed like a great success as amino acids were formed. But, after further analysis, Miller’s experiment was exploited for it’s faults. The amino acids formed were actually not the building blocks of life. Rather, they were the amino acids that tear down and destroy life. Miller did not have the technology in his time to discover this fatal flaw. Since this argument holds no scientific truth, it must be considered illogical (Wile and Durnell).
Another theory that Darwin held as a crucial part of evolution is structural homology. The definition of structural homology is the study of similar structures in different species.
Page 3
Darwin believed this theory to be evidence for macroevolution and common ancestry (Wile and Durnell 282). Darwin said that these incredible similarities among such vastly different species were excellent evidence that they all had a common ancestor. In Darwin’s time, this was a very strong argument due to that fact that evolution was only observed on what could be seen with the eye. But then, Mendel’s discoveries came out. After Mendel’s discoveries, scientists began to understand DNA and the unique sequences of nucleotide bases in an organism’s DNA. This discovery totally demoralized Darwin’s theory. If Darwin’s theory was true, then the homologous structures would show up in the DNA right? Well then why is the DNA evidence not there? Because Darwin’s homologous structure theory is incorrect! Dr. Michael Denton, author of A Theory of Crisis, said this, “The evolutionary basis of homology is perhaps even more severely damaged by the discovery that apparently homologous structures are specified by quite different genes in different species…With the demise of any sort of straightforward explanation for homology one of the major pillars of evolution theory has become so weakened that its value as evidence for evolution is greatly diminished.” (Wile and Durnell 283).
The whole theory of macroevolution hangs in the balance of one piece of evidence that is absent: the transitional species. Where are the fossil records that support an ape turning into a man? Darwin and other evolutionists have struggled to find transitional species. Darwin says this in his book: “We have no right to expect to discover directly connecting links between the species” (Darwin 290). Why not? Why is Darwin saying that we are not supposed to expect transitional species fossils? I think that Darwin has realized that his theory has faults without transitional species and now he is trying to say that these species can’t be expected to appear. If we don’t expect them to appear, then we will still consider them existent. One would just assume
Page 4 that we simply can’t see them. In today’s scientific world, we need to expect evidence for every new scientific discovery. Without evidence, a sound conclusion can’t be created. Darwin also says that “Just because we haven’t seen it (transitional species) doesn’t mean that it can’t happen” (Darwin 290). Here, Darwin is committing the logical fallacy of Argument of Ignorance. He is trying to say that we the fossils are there we just haven’t found them yet. Well truth is, we have searched almost the entire geological column throughout the world, and no transitional species have been found.
Now, the typical evolutionary rebuttal to my point would be that the remains of the transitional species could have decomposed. Well I would say that the evolutionists are throwing all their hopes into an assumption. Yes, it is possible that the transitional species could have decomposed and left no fossil remains, but is it likely that all of these animals left no remains? The chances of every single transitional species leaving no evidence behind are very slim. Also, Darwin was making the assumption that these fossils would never be found because he knew that some regions of the geological column were unreachable. Today, we can reach those supposed “unreachable” levels and we have found no hard evidence of transitional species. So yes, it is possible that all transitional species decomposed, but it would be highly unlikely if they existed at one point (Answers in Genesis 2).
The next theory I will discuss is natural selection. I believe that Darwin’s findings in natural selection hold some scientific truth. An animal’s life depends on its survival skills in its environment and it’s availability to food. Darwin’s classic example of natural selection is the pigeons. He explains in his discoveries how certain adaptations to certain birds allow for higher
Page 5 or lower chances of surviving. For example, if there is a drought of rain, and the worms burrow down into the earth, then the pigeons with the shorter beaks will be more suited to survive because they could crack nuts and eat them for food. The pigeons with the long beaks would starve and die off. Darwin believed that this theory could apply to all animals in any environment. I think his theory on natural selection holds some truth. But, Darwin makes too large of assumptions from this theory. He says that because of natural selection, we have lost many animals that have become extinct. Darwin is making a logical fallacy in saying that animals who have died off could have been his missing links or transitional species. But, if these animals did become extinct, wouldn’t they show up in the fossil record? The numbers don’t add up for Darwin’s assumptions.
Another mystery that Darwin fails to interpret is DNA. Now, Darwin himself was never able to refute this point because DNA was not discovered until the middle of the 20th Century. He never fully understood the masterpiece that God designed in DNA. In 1953, Watson and Crick, scientists at Cambridge University, began to uncover the beauty of DNA. They found that DNA is formed into the shape of a double helix. This double helix is composed of base pairs made of adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine. Adenine will always combine with thymine and cytosine will always combine with guanine. The order of these nucleotides is so complex, that chance nor human intervention could have no impact on this DNA. The complexity is so big that only God himself could form such a beautiful work. Genesis 1:11 supports DNA by saying, “Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth’; and it was so.” God
Page 6 planted the “seed” in each plant. The seed is a necessity of plant life. Therefore, the seed can be related to DNA since it is also necessary for life.
When one view’s Darwin’s theory, I believe it is only fair to examine the evidence and place the emotions on the side. In science, we know that God created all matter, but hard evidence must be displayed in order for any theory to hold truth. Therefore, I believe that I have provided enough information to conclude that Darwin’s evolutionary views have a few flaws. He does not provide evidence for macroevolution in his work On the Origin of Species. But, if Darwin doesn’t provide sufficient information, then why does society follow his theory? Well, I think that the world is blindfolded by scientists who use big words and sound smart. People are gullible and will easily follow the smarter man. But, the everyday man doesn’t know how to interpret science. It is especially hard if The Lord is not in the picture. So I strongly believe, that with God’s help, we can know the truth and stand our ground in the debate against macroevolution.