This month’s article is reprinted with permission from Think & Believe, the official bimonthly publication of the Alpha Omega Institute, PO Box 4343, Grand Junction CO 81502. Editors: Dave & Mary Jo Nutting.
Do you and your children have answers for the most commonly used “proofs” of evolution? It would obviously take more space than available here to provide in-depth answers, but the following discussion should hit a few high points.
Evolutionary textbooks often give fossils as the “best evidence” of evolutionary development of life over eons of time. Intermediate forms were expected to show how the transition from one type of animal to another took place. However, these hypothesized transitional forms are called “missing links” for good reason – they’re missing! Creationists say they’re missing because they never existed. The fossil record shows that life forms were fully-developed, not transitional forms, e.g. no half-legs or half-wings are found. In fact, transitions between all major groups are missing. The pictures of transitions in textbooks and museums are the product of artistic imagination and evolutionary bias, not actual finds. In addition, most fossils are found in types of water-deposited strata which is consistent with a global flood.
Evolutionists use [radioactive decay and various other] methods to give ancient ages for the Earth. Young-age creationists have shown inconsistencies in these methods, including recent layers dated as millions of years old. They cite numerous dating methods which give much younger ages and also show that all dating methods are based upon assumptions which may or may not be true. (Dating methods are only as reliable as the assumptions upon which they are based.) Creationists also point to fossil evidence, e.g. polystrate fossils which cut through many rock layers spanning supposedly millions of years, and observed geologic catastrophism, e.g. the rapid layer deposition and canyon formation following the eruption of Mount St. Helens, to show that geologic processes do not take as long as usually taught.
Similarity of physical form or biochemicals in various creatures is most often interpreted by evolutionists as evidence of common ancestry. If no ancestral relationship seems to exist, these similarities are interpreted as “convergent evolution” (the development of similar structures in dissimilar organisms due to selection pressure from the environment). Creationists recognize that some similarity exists because of close relationship, but also recognize that similarity may be the result of design for similar functions, such as between different style boats. Similarities also point to one Creator, not several – much as an artist’s work is recognized by his particular style.
Changes in relative numbers of light and dark phases of moths before and after the industrial revolution in England is used as evidence of natural selection. Many evolutionary textbooks falsely convey the idea that by demonstrating natural selection, they are proving evolution. Natural selection, though, is not evidence of evolution. It fits easily with creation. The peppered moth color phases are simply variation within a created kind. Also, the moths have not changed into anything new. They are still moths.
These are structures evolutionists interpret as having had function only in the evolutionary past. Researchers, however, have discovered functions for most of the structures that have been called “vestigial,” including the human appendix. We predict that functions will be found for those remaining. But even if not, it seems more likely for originally-created structures to lose function than for functional complexity to develop by chance.
Evolutionists point to the similarity in the pattern of embryological development as evidence of common ancestry. They say certain parts appear to be “leftovers” from evolutionary development. Creationists again point out that similarity may be interpreted as evidence of design by the same Designer. They also show that the so-called “leftovers,” i.e. “gill slits,” “yolk sac,” and “tail” are not really leftovers at all, but have important functions in human development. Gill slits are not slits but pharyngeal pouches which develop into important structures in the jaw and neck region. The “yolk sac” produces the first blood cells, not a yolk. And the “tail” is not a tail but is a vital point of muscle attachment.
Evolutionists point to many “ape-men” in the human family tree. Creationists point out that many of these have been initially based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence. Later finds have made it clear that these creatures were either pure ape, pure monkey, or pure human, with nothing in between but a lot of artistic imagination. Some “species” have been pieced together from remains found miles apart, including the Australopithecines of which “Lucy” is the prize specimen. The “missing links” are still missing! Evidence is consistent with the Biblical record of the creation.