More Reasons Why Evolution Is Unreasonable


by Wayne S. Walker

    Many times, Bible believers who espouse creationism are accused of having an "unreasonable" faith in the face of all the so-called "scientific" evidence which supposedly proves evolution. In Romans 12:2 Paul described Christianity as a "reasonable service." As we noted in our last article of this series, while our relationship to God is not based solely on human reason, yet God’s word does appeal to our reason, and God expects us to use our reason to examine evidence that we may determine what is true and false. In contrast, we also saw that evolution is unreasonable in that it asks us to believe in that which has not been proven, often resorts to subterfuge in its attempt at justification, and automatically rejects the possibility of the supernatural. In this article, we want to pursue that line of thought.

     Another reason why evolution is unreasonable is that it requires acceptance of only one explanation for available evidence when other explanations are equally available and valid. One form of evidence used to "prove" evolution is a study of comparative morphology and physiology in anatomy. All animals are composed of the same basic protoplasm organized as cells. In the larger groups of animals there are similar organ systems for digestion, excretion, and other functions. This is an observable fact. The evolutionist’s interpretation of this evidence is that organs fundamentally the same in structure, though modified for different functions, can be explained ONLY through common ancestry. The evolutionist will admit of no other explanation. But the creationist’s interpretation of the same evidence is that the existence of structural plans common to a large number of animals suggests design in the planning of creation for these animals to live in the same basic environment, and thus it points to God as the Creator. Hence, there are two possible explanations for the same evidence. The same thing is true for the study of genetics, anthropology, and any other evidence that the evolutionist might offer to "prove" his theory.

     A final reason why evolution may be considered unreasonable is that in the past evolutionists have resorted to downright dishonesty in asserting its proofs. In 1912 "Piltdown Man" was heralded by virtually all eminent scientists as the great missing link between apes and man. Charles Dawson had supposedly found part of a skull in one place and a portion of a jawbone with teeth in another, concluding that these were from a creature with a human-like cranium and an ape-like jawbone. However, 41 years later, it was proved that Dawson had artificially ground the teeth in an ape’s jawbone to look more human and then discolored the teeth to make them look older. A similar incident occurred in 1922 with "Nebraska Man," where a pig’s tooth was mistakenly identified as coming from an early ape-man. Such shenanigans, whether on purpose or by mistake, do not, in and of themselves, prove evolution to be false, and we cannot charge all evolutionists with this kind of dishonesty. But incidents like these do show that in the past evolutionists have considered their ground somewhat shaky and have turned to "creating" their own "proof." This is certainly unreasonable, but much of the evidence being offered today for evolution is no more reasonable in the last analysis. It must be accepted by blind faith simply because certain "scientists" say it is so.

     Many more so-called "proofs" for evolution could be examined, and there are many works by Bible-believing scientists which do so quite capably. But what we have studied should be sufficient to explain why many people believe that accepting the general theory of evolution is unreasonable. Such evolution has never been scientifically observed nor is there any precise historical record of its occurrence. Since the evidence that is offered can be explained equally well by the theory of creation science, it is simply unreasonable to affirm that evolution is a proven fact or indeed anything other than a working hypothesis for the origin and development of life on earth. And it is not necessarily all that good of a hypothesis at that. Our next article will show why evolution is totally unbiblical. (—taken from With All Boldness; January, 1994; Vol. 4, No. 1; p. 6)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s