Irony, Chance, and Chaos

by Terri Kammerzell

Truth of Genesis Ministry Partner

I think you can agree with me that 2020 has been just about the most dumbfounding year most of us can ever remember. Even if you haven’t experienced as much personal loss or trials as you may have in other years, the restlessness and chaos in the world around us are at unprecedented levels. So many changes have been made in our world this year, and some of these changes—for better or worse—will never be undone.

Another word for “change” is “evolve.” That’s why, when it comes to this week’s Fun Fact, I was careful to be precise in my wording:

What is Darwinian Evolution?
The idea of Darwinian Evolution suggests that life began as a chance combination of nonliving chemicals.

For some reason, this Fun Fact has been the most challenging for me to write about this year. In fact, I already postponed it once because I was struggling to find a good angle. The irony is that I have more resources for this Fun Fact than for any others on my website. In fact, perhaps that is the problem: I have too many ideas about what to communicate with you regarding it.

Let’s start by breaking it down and focusing on some of the keywords.

Why “Darwinian Evolution”? As I mentioned above, “evolve” in itself is not a dirty word. It simply means change. Things change. Change is one of the few absolute guarantees in this world (except when you’re staring at a vending machine). In fact, I don’t know of any creation apologists who don’t acknowledge the reality of “microevolution,” but as I mentioned when I wrote about the finches Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands, microevolution is the result of changes (usually from mutations, adaptation, etc.) that occur within a kind (which I defined last week when I wrote about dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark). But the term “Darwinian Evolution” specifically refers to something we also call “molecules-to-man evolution,” or “macroevolution.”

Why “idea”? Isn’t macroevolution a fact? After all, it is widely taught in public—and even some Christian—schools all over the world. Couldn’t it at least be referred to as a “theory”? Scientifically speaking, no. Macroevolution is not only not a fact, but it doesn’t even qualify as a theory. The scientific method starts when someone has an idea and asks a question. Then they do some basic research and formulate a statement of predictability, called a hypothesis. From there, they conduct tests and experiments, analyze data, and examine if the hypothesis could be true. It is only after repeatable, observable, testable processes that a hypothesis makes its way to the next step: a scientific theory. Even scientific theories have been later disproven because nobody can possibly do every single test in the world to make sure their hypothesis always proves true.

What about the idea that all of life originated from the chance combination of nonliving chemicals? In other words, could something have come from nothing? And then, could that something which came from nothing, and has nothing to interact with develop into a more orderly and complicated something else, over and over again, until life developed?

Well, let’s ask some critical questions:

1. Can it be repeated? Nope! No scientist has ever been able to make something out of nothing. (By the way, the Law of Mass Conservation tells us no scientist ever will be able to either.)
2. Has it ever been observed? Nope! Nobody was there to see this supposed non-miraculous event of nothing making something, supposedly millions or billions of years ago. And since that time, no scientist has ever been able to make it happen again (refer to question 1 above).
3. Can it be tested, quantitatively and/or qualitatively? Nope! (Refer to question 1 above.)

Therefore, I refer to Darwinian Evolution as just an “idea” in my Fun Fact. But if you’ll indulge me a bit, there are a couple of other important aspects to this Fun Fact that I’d like to bring to your attention.

First, in this one-year blog series, I am presenting to you the set of 49 Fundamental Facts I developed for a homeschool Bible class. But in my first post, and on the main page of my website, I clearly explain that these Fun Facts are “evidence-based.” Each week, I have been presenting evidence to not only debunk the idea of molecules-to-man evolution, but also to confirm the biblical account of Creation. As a reminder:

• On June 26, I told you about the bombardier beetle and how his little gas chambers had to be in place right from the beginning, or he would have died from improper use or incomplete combustion reactions. “And,” I mentioned, “as a pretty good rule of thumb, dead animals cannot evolve.”
• On July 24, I introduced you to the concept of “irreducible complexity,” mentioning the giraffe and beetle as great examples that defy evolution “because their complex designs could not have gradually evolved to what they are.”
• Similarly, on September 4, I explained why the human brain could not be “the result of random chance combinations and millions of years of evolution.”
• On October 9, I described how “although the ‘backward design’ of the human eye has often led unbelievers to cite it as an example of ‘chance’ evolution, in reality, the irreducible complexity of our eyes points to a very creative and thoughtful Designer!”
• And on November 6, in my “More Chaos, Not Less” post, I told you, “Evolutionists have a hard time overcoming the Second Law in their hypotheses about organisms becoming more complex over time.”

Even with all these insurmountable proofs against Darwinian Evolution, there are still many who just refuse to believe in a God Who created life. And on July 31, I explained that truth somewhat with my Fun Fact of Romans 1:20, which says, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and godhead, so that they are without excuse” (NKJV). I told you then: “In the world of creation science and apologetics, this passage pops up a lot. Of course, Darwinian evolution has become so commonplace, and the ‘accepted science’ of the public schools in our country. But . . . when it comes down to it, evolution—as a scientific model—was developed to try to find a way to explain origins without a Creator, without a God to Whom each one of us is accountable.”

In the study of logic, we would call this a “rescuing device.” Rescuing devices are arguments people come up with because they don’t want to reevaluate a flawed presupposition or worldview they are holding onto. This takes us into the other side of the creation apologetics camp. This is the side that takes into consideration that everyone on the planet has access to the same evidence. However, how a person interprets that evidence is all about their worldview, which is the basic network of their beliefs that they assume to be true from the beginning. It’s sort of like how the color of lenses a person may wear will cause them to see the world differently than a person with no lenses, or with a different color.

And so, it is important to understand that arguing for the voracity of the Bible on the basis of evidence can only get you so far. Sometimes, you have to be able to challenge a person’s worldview and help them realize the flimsiness and inconsistencies of any worldview that does not start with God as the Maker of all. My goal is to also produce a set of “Logic Fun Facts” within the next year, but in the meantime, I highly recommend watching Dr. Jason Lisle’s “Ultimate Proof of Creation” presentation. (He starts around the 10-minute mark.)

The last thing I want to mention about this Fun Fact is the inconsistencies of accepting molecules-to-man evolution but also holding to many socially ethical campaigns. For example, yesterday (December 10) happened to be “Human Rights Day.” Established by the United Nations, the annual observation is geared to bring awareness of the “rights” to which some humans around the world are deprived. This same international organization also promotes Darwin’s evolutionary ideas. How ironic is that? If Darwinian Evolution is true, then human beings are merely the result of chance combinations of nonliving chemicals.  And, in that case, why should they have any rights at all, when there was nobody to give them those rights in the first place?

This reminds me of a conversation I had with one of my students five years ago: He came into Bible class one week and sincerely asked me, "Miss K, what if evolution really WERE true?" I stopped and thought about it logically and said (something to the effect of), "Well, then we wouldn't be more than animals. And if that were true, there would be no need for an eternal focus, and really we would have no real purpose in this life. Nobody would have a God-shaped vacuum, so there would be no need for anyone to believe in God, and the idea of creationism would never have had a need or purpose. If evolution were true, I think it would be the only story given for our existence. I would think there wouldn't even be any Christians."

Or, as I later read from C.S. Lewis: "Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..."

I don’t know about you, but to me the irony of people celebrating rights given by nobody to humans—the result of random chance processes—just adds to the chaos level in the world this year. And, ultimately, I don’t think that’s merely by chance. The shorter Satan's time gets, the more desperate he is to distract, deceive, and destroy as many people as possible. After all, he is the master of the rescuing device. 

Don’t just take my word for it! Visit YouFormedMe.com/theories/evolution.html to read, watch, and listen to supporting research and commentary from scientists, doctors, theologians, and more!
This blog is from a special series of “Creation Fun Facts” by Terri Kammerzell, starting from June 10, 2020. Read the introduction at TruthOfGenesis.com/blogs/building-a-biblical-defense-of-creation.