Evolution Or Creation?

or . . . why no evolutionist can see a Black Widow spider or learn Arabic

Any belief-system should be open to challenge. It is natural to expect that every belief-system will have some shortcomings, questions that are difficult to answer. Yet if a challenge suggests a contradiction in the belief, then one cannot confidentially claim that the belief-system is superior to all others. Certainly we should seek a belief-system that has more satisfactory answers.

An Evolutionist could believe in a Creator:

Is it possible that life on this planet evolved?
Is it possible that scientists will eventually be able to create life just as evolution did?
Is it possible that some day scientists could travel to another planet and create life there?
Could that life evolve on that planet?
Could that life eventually become intelligent?
Would those beings ever be able to discover they had been created? How?
Is it possible that life on this planet was started by a creator from another world?
How would you know?
If we were created, would you want to know it?

Challenges to macro-biological evolution
Challenges to Survival of the fittest

Challenges to macro-biological evolution

What did our very first ancestor look like? Evolutionists would say it was a one-celled living organism that just happened to form out of naturally occurring chemicals. That sounds quite amazing but that is only half of the story. If this living organism could not also reproduce, it was a dead-end and was not our ancestor. This means that not only did a bunch of chemicals form a living cell but they formed a creature that was able to reproduce, leading to offspring who could continue to reproduce.

If this facet of evolution were scientific, an experiment could be performed with naturally occurring chemicals that produced a living cell that could also reproduce. But this experiment has never been accomplished. So if this event cannot be performed, not even described, how does this belief differ from blind "faith?"

Which came first, the male or the female?

Presumably the first life reproduced by way of cellular division, that is, the first life could reproduce itself without the need for another of its own kind. So at some point a creature that could reproduce by itself produced a mutated offspring that could reproduce by sexual reproduction. But sexual reproduction is more complicated than simple cell division. The mutation necessary to add this new attribute would be quite significant and complex. For this mutation to carry on the evolutionary process the organism would also need to encounter another organism like itself, one that had also acquired the ability for sexual reproduction and more than that, it would need to be compatible with the first organism. The likelihood of this is astronomically small. Evolutionists might conjecture that this new organism retained the ability to reproduce by cell division and after many generations of this creature two organisms eventually found each other and somehow instinctively knew what to do. This still is quite unlikely since it involves organisms reproducing while retaining organs that have no use, and are only useable if two compatible organisms contact each other and behave in a totally new way.

Challenges to Survival of the fittest

Evolutionists can not get bit by Black Widow spiders

The principle of "survival of the fittest" implies that any species that has been around for a long time is a survivor, it is more fit than its predecessors. So assume that evolutionary model is correct and consider how the Black Widow spider, or one of the other few 'suicidal' species today, may have developed. The Black Widow spider is so named due to the characteristic of the female killing the male immediately after breeding, thus becoming a widow. Why does the female kill the male? Could it be that she eats him because she needs food? The male is very tiny by comparison to the female and she has no difficulty capturing other sources of food since her bite is extremely poisonous. The male's death serves no useful purpose in the evolutionary model.

This suicidal behavior, shared by a very few other species, does not help survival in any way. So, following the model of survival of the fittest, we conclude that when such a species first appears by mutation on the evolutionary scene it would be competing against the established predecessor clan. Its predecessor would not have the same suicidal tendency, it would be more fit for survival, the males breed more often, they have more offspring. The suicidal newcomer usually only breeds once. So the newer mutation clan has no advantage, it would likely die out eventually. Therefore, if evolution is responsible for the suicidal species we see today, that would imply that all such species must be recent mutations. But if they are recent mutations, we should also see the predecessor species still in existence. We should see a species of spider very similar to the Black Widow except it would be without the suicidal tendency. It would be vastly more fit for survival and very visible. But we see no such cousin spider.

The second challenge to this situation is that if a non-suicidal male ever appeared, due to mutation, it would breed much more often than its predecessor. It would have more offspring, and this offspring would also have the non-suicidal tendencies. Then these would breed more often and soon the non-suicidal male would dominate. Yet we do not see this happening. Implying that there has not been sufficient time for such a mutation to appear, leading to the conclusion again that these suicidal species are very recent on the evolutionary scene. But then we ask again, where is the more robust predecessors? Evolutionists should never see a suicidal species without its parent clan still around.

Which came first, the sheep or the shepherd?

All existing creatures today are assumed to have passed through centuries of harsh environments and being superior survivors, out-performed competitors, ancestors and near cousins. Those survival instincts would continue to be passed on even after the environment may have improved, permitting an easier life. Domesticated cats and dogs still retain instincts for hunting even though they may have never observed such skills nor ever needed them. Yet upon being released to the wild, dogs will hunt in packs and cats become natural predators.

What are the survival skills possessed by sheep?  Modern breeds of sheep appear to be devoid of survival skills or defensive mechanisms. They seem to depend on humans for their existence. Without human protection they become easy prey for predators. We do not see a symbiotic relationship where some animal protects sheep for a selfish reason. Animals either have no use for sheep or simply want to eat them. Only humans shepherd them for use. So in what kind of environment did sheep evolve? If they had ancestors that were more aggressive or more able to fend off predators, those breeds would have out-performed a more passive kind and would have dominated throughout time. Yet we see no such aggressive breed. It would seem the passive sheep came into being and flourished only during the reign of humans, there were no sheep ancestors prior to human shepherds.

How could an infant learn a language without a teacher?

Human language is learned, not invented. There have been a few, but rare, examples of humans raised in the wild by animals. They had no exposure to human language. They did not invent language on their own. When they got older and were brought into human society they were unable to learn a language. Likewise for children raised in an oppressive environment, without hearing human language. They are never able to learn a language if they do not hear it when young.

There have been studies with infants and toddlers and the ability to discern the vocal sounds necessary to distinguish one word from another. In one study infants and toddlers were exposed to words with sounds that only occur in Arabic. When one particular sound was made some puppets would automatically dance. If a child was able to distinguish the specific sound from other accompanying sounds, the child would anticipate the dancing puppets and turn his/her head to watch.  With repeated tests it was found that infants under 6 months always responded by turning their heads to watch, toddlers never did. Unless a child hears the sound as an infant, it will never be able to distinguish it.

So how did language develop? Adults could not have invented the subtle vocal sounds like those present in Chinese or Hindi for they would have been unable to hear them. Such language can only be learned as an infant, but they must be taught by an adult. So how did language evolve? The Bible says it was God's gift at creation, at the tower of Babel and lastly at Pentecost.

Surprisingly written language is easier to invent than spoken language and adults can learn it easier because visual stimulation is pervasive on earth, even for infants. Yet evolutionists insist spoken language is much older than written language, why?

When did the American Indian become senseless?

The supposed evolutionary mechanism of "survival of the fittest" implies all existing creatures today have passed through centuries of harsh environments and, being superior survivors, out-performed competitors, ancestors and near cousins. The American Indian found on the American continent 300 years ago, and even some who live on reservations today, have always lived in wilderness conditions, since humanity began. Yet the evidence implies the instincts and abilities they were born with have been no different than the instincts and abilities of europeans. The Indians are not born with extraordinary hearing (like wild animals), eyesight (like the eagle), smell (like wild animals), or taste. They may have learned to use their senses through experience but they were not born with senses that are equal or superior to wild animals. If their ancestors had senses comparable to those of animals, then when did they lose those abilities? They have always had a need for such abilities for they have always lived in wilderness conditions - whether in the wilds of America or centuries ago in Siberia or before that in Mongolia. So if their ancestors had advanced senses, because they evolved from hardy animals, then when were those abilities lost. Did some ancestor have a mutated offspring lacking those senses? Then that offspring was competing against others possessing those useful senses needed in a wilderness environment. So according to the evolutionary model that mutant would not do well. Losing abilities never made anyone superior. Since the Indians have always needed those abilities, when in history did a mutant who lost abilities suddenly become dominant? This would not have happened if the evolutionary model were true.

Why evolutionists where clothes but monkeys do not

The Bible describes the differences between humans and animals with characteristics acquired at the "fall". Genesis (Genesis 3:7,16) records that as a result of sin, humans would feel the need to cover their bodies and human mothers would experience birth-pangs.

Animals do not need to cover themselves yet they adapt to the environment and survive. All human cultures, even ones living in temperate zones, feel the need to cover their bodies. Nudity among adult humans has a strong effect to the point of being considered a problem. How could this characteristic help humans survive and out-perform cousin competitors who had no need of clothing themselves? It cannot be claimed that humans lived in areas where survival required covering themselves with animal skins. Clearly the animals whose skins were used to make clothes were capable of surviving alongside the humans. Then the ancestors of the clothes-needing humans should have been capable of surviving just as other animals did, without the need of additional clothing. If a mutated human suddenly acquired the need to find clothing in addition to other needs, how did this improve the survivability of the organism? It appears that humans who need to clothe themselves have lost a useful attribute rather than gaining one.

The second attribute acquired is that of birth-pangs. Animals do not experience the extreme suffering associated with human birthing. How can this attribute be so crucial to human survival? Since other modern animals did not evolve with this same weakness, it would seem somewhere along the evolutionary chain there were pre-humans that did not experience this suffering. They should have been more suited to reproduction and out-performing humans who experienced birth-pangs with each and every child born. This seems to speak against "survival of the fittest".


The evolutionary model does not explain and cannot reproduce the first formation of a living cell that could reproduce. It does not explain nor show how sexual reproduction began. It does not explain nor show why there are black widow spiders. It does not explain or show how spoken language started before written language nor how adults got spoken language before infants. Finally it does not explain how animals gifted with survival instincts evolved into Indians who needed those abilities but were born without them. If a person has a belief that life was started by an intelligent designer but cannot show it in an experiment and this is labeled "faith" then how is the evolutionary model, which says it all happened by chance but cannot be scientifically demonstrated, different from "faith?"

If someone were to encounter tough questions that challenged the Bible's explanation would you not say it was reasonable to investigate other possible explanations? Then likewise, is it not just as reasonable to say that since the above challenges do not fit the evolutionary model one should investigate a different explanation, one that has supporting evidence, the biblical creation model?