Jeremy E. Sarber

I’ve mentioned before that Jeremy chiefly asked me to write political opinion pieces on his website.  But once again, I have something else on my mind, and I feel compelled to write about it.  Jeremy is a pretty nice guy, so I feel safe that he won’t mind too much.

Now, as a believer in the creation of all things by God, naturally, I don’t believe in evolution, at least not in the “macro” evolutionary sense of the word.  In case you’re unclear on the difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution, let me explain.

Micro-evolution is a simple and logical theory that explains species adaptaion via genetic natural selection.  For instance, say a certain breed of dogs live in an area such as northern Alaska or Canada, and the area in which they live is a snow covered wilderness, remote, and without any trace of human occupancy.  In this breed’s gene pool is two variations in coat color.  One gene causes the dog to be black, and the other gene causes the dog to be white.  Now, obviously the dogs that are born with a white coat have an advantage because they have the ability to be stealthy.  They are better able to sneak up on prey and hide from predators.  The black dogs will stand out and have less chance of survival.  Over a short period of time, only a few decades, the white variety of this breed will outnumber the black variety because their survival rate is higher, thus leading to higher rates of procreation.  Pretty simple and logical, right?

Macro-evolution is the theory that, through a long enough period of time, genetic mutations and natural selection (micro-evolution) can cause completely different species to emerge, i.e. monkey becomes man.

Micro-evolution can cause traits to be dominant within a species, but at the end of the day (or eon as some scientists would argue) a dog is still a dog, a cat is still a cat, and a monkey is still a monkey.

Macro-evolution would tell us that a dog could someday become a biped, gain the ability to reason, and possibly pass man on the food chain.  Makes you look at Sparky in a new light, huh? 

Ok, after that amusing thought, let me bring up the first point I would like to make.  Macro-evolution simply goes against human intuition.  Every initial logical thought says that animals can not change that drastically no matter how long they are left to “evolve.”  A man has to be taught to think that way, it doesn’t come naturally.  

Along the same line of thought comes the old Watch and the Watchmaker example.  This example, created by William Paley, states that any man who found a watch, if he had no knowledge of watches or of the process that assembles watches, would instinctively know that the watch must have had a designer.  The same applies to the human body.  It doesn’t take an education to intuitively know that a human body, in all its complexities, must have some sort of designer.  Even the cells that make up our bodies have extremely complex processes that keep us alive, and these processes work in tandom to nearly complete perfection to keep us alive.  But even if you don’t know how our bodies’ processes work, it just seems so obvious to me that we didn’t come into existance by some random chance.  We have imperfect symmetry, tools that are grown from our torso that we call limbs with functional digits (fingers and toes) and friction ridges (finger prints) that help us hold on to things we pick up, and an incredibly complex brain that interprets the information that it recieves from our five senses.   Someone had a plan and a design to create human beings and all other life.  It just seems so obvious that this is the case.

Now for those who simply don’t think that we, humans, look like we are the product of a higher Being’s creativity, let me give a scientific argument as to why macro-evolution is irrational. 

There are certain types of bacteria, one of the most simple forms of life, that tell a story so profound that it made me awestruck the first time I witnessed their complexities.  Bacteria such as Salmonella and E. Coli have what is known as flagellum.  These flagella act as a source of mobility for the bacteria by serving as a kind of fin or tail that propel a bacterium in fluid.  This may not seem to be incredibly amazing at first glance, — after all, fish and aquatic mammals have fins too, but not many people get worked up over that — but after the technology came along to study the intricate design of these flagella, some remarkable discoveries were made.  See, this flagellum is powered by a nano rotary motor much like the ones that man has developed for various purposes.  And even more interesting, is the fact that this “motor” is irreducibly complex.  By that, I mean that each individual part that comprises it is necessary for it to function.  If one piece had not been included in its assembly, it would be useless. 

Below is a picture of one of these motors, so you can better understand what I’m talking about.

Now, according to the theory of macro-evolution, changes in species are caused by beneficial genetic mutations.  Well, how does this relate to the flagella attatched to these bacteria?  Well, if the power of evolution caused this thing to evolve, one of two things must have occured.  Either 1.) the entire motor evolved at one time by a blind genetic mutation or 2.) each piece to the “motor” and the tail evolved through seperate genetic mutations over a period of time in a manner succession to each other in which each part complemented the other.  But remember, according to the theory of evolution, a genetic mutation must be favorable to the species, or at least neutral, in order for it to ”stick” and become a dominate trait, because unfavorable mutations will decrease chance of survival.  Well, if that were the case, why would these pieces to the ”motor” continue to be passed on through reproduction long enough to assemble into this motor?  Or why wouldn’t we see other random and useless things protruding out of animals while nature slowly assembles other “motors” and beneficial complex parts? 

Why?  Because these things were designed.  Someone had a purpose.  All it takes to realize it is a simple unclouding of the mind.  Just ignore all the bull fecal matter that has perverted our God given instincts and use your noggin’. 

It frustrates me that this theory has become accepted as fact and is taught as such in school when it has so many holes in it.  Creationism is the only theory that is impervious to holes because it has the God factor included.  If a Being is powerful enough to create an entire universe and breathe the breath of life, wouldn’t He have the power to create a mature earth with mature creatures?  Of course He could.  I’ve heard lots of Christians make the comment that it takes more faith to believe evolution than to believe in creation.  There is a lot of truth in that.  Even early civilizations, who were not in contact with the nation of Israel and God’s account of creation, had the rationality to understand that they could not have been created by chance.  It’s just amazing that it seems so obvious to me and the others who understand the truth of creation, but it’s a laughable fairy tale to so many who consider themselves “intellectuals”.