What should be said in response to this two-headed monster? First of all, while it is true that one definition of evolution is change over time, this is not what the word means in the Darwinian sense. Bio-chemist Michael Behe observed:

In its full-throated, biological sense...evolution means a process whereby life arose from non-living matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means. That is the sense that Darwin gave to the word, and the meaning that it holds in the scientific community (x-xi).

Evolution, then, is much more than mere “change over time.” When a Darwinist uses this word, he makes reference to the “molecule to man” hypothesis that is at the heart of modern science, not to minor changes within a species that never progress beyond certain delimited boundaries.

In contrast to crafty indoctrinating tactics, the thoughtful student will realize that while he has certainly changed over the years, he has nevertheless remained a member of the same species (i.e., Homo sapiens) throughout. Although he has undergone significant developmental changes from birth to adolescence, at no point did a lizard mutate into a man!

Going in Circles

Students are often mesmerized—and intimidated—by the plethora of supporting data that evolutionists apparently possess. Textbooks are inundated with charts, drawings, and diagrams, all of which seem to confirm evolution beyond the shadow of a doubt. What most people fail to realize, however, is that when you begin with the assumption that evolution has occurred—as most professors and virtually all textbook authors do—all subsequent data must then be manipulated to fit the preconceived mold.

This happens far more often than most people realize. Some examples are very subtle and usually go unnoticed. A classic case is seen in appeals to the taxonomic system—a rather subjective classification system based on the belief that evolution has occurred—as proof of evolution. If one is convinced of evolution, it is not difficult to imagine how he will stack the proverbial deck.

Other instances are far more obvious, if we know where to look. The more one studies evolution, the more he sees that its major tenets are often defended by the logical fallacy known as circular reasoning. (We reason in a circle when we recycle the premises of our argument as the conclusion.) In fact, one is tempted to say that were it not for circular reasoning, evolution would have no reasoning at all. Let us notice a few areas wherein Darwinists frequently resort to this fallacy in order to defend their theory.

Age of the Earth

Evolutionists contend that the earth is approximately five billion years old, existing in a universe that is an additional three to four times that age. This is a crucial point for Darwinists because, as one apologist noted, time is “the hero of the plot.” Without vast ages to accommodate for evolution, the theory falls flat.

When pressed for evidence that the earth is actually billions of years old, Darwinists maintain that it must be of ancient age, because it is “certain” that evolution has occurred. Then, when evidence is demanded for the claim that evolution has transpired, they will often point to the age of the earth and insist that such allows enough time for the drastic changes evolution necessitates. It is amazing that this passes for “scientific thinking” in our institutes of higher learning!

Fossils

Darwinists are especially fond of appealing to fossils as proof of their precious theory. Of course, no one denies the existence of fossils. What must be realized, however, is that fossils are not intrinsic proof of descent from a common ancestor. Like other “icons of evolution,” they are subject to the interpretation placed upon them.

For example, evolutionists often proudly proclaim, “We have fossils that are many millions of years old.” When asked, “How can you be certain?” they will reply, “Because we found them in rocks that are known to be millions of years old.” If it is countered, “How do you know the rocks are millions of years old?” the reply will essentially be: “Because we found fossils in them that are millions of years old.” Rocks date the fossils; fossils date the rocks. Where is the logic in this?

Natural Selection

According to current thought, natural selection is one of two primary mechanisms (along with genetic mutation) responsible for the amazing diversity of life existing on earth. Natural selection, or “survival of the fittest,” is the idea that the weak will be systematically eliminated from a population, with only the strong surviving to propagate their healthier, more robust genes to the following generations.

What most textbooks do not disclose is that “natural” selection is actually an artificial theory. As science journalist Richard Milton related, “The overwhelming majority of creatures do not fight, do not kill for food, and do not compete aggressively for space in a way that results in the ‘loser’ dying out” (124–125). Another obvious flaw is the inability of natural selection to account for the origin of life in the first place. Hugo de Vries, an evolutionary botanist, once conceded, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest” (quoted in Jackson, Answering God’s Critic).

Upon closer examination, it is seen that natural selection is not even an explanation—it is a truism. According to the theory, both the “survivors” and the “fittest” are measured in terms of breeding success (i.e., the ability to pass their genes on to successive generations). When the smoke clears, it is observed that natural selection argues for little more than “survival of the survivors,” or, as Milton described it, “the prolific breeding of the most prolific breeders” (123). That may be so—by definition—but what does it prove? As Milton wryly concluded, “Natural selection is not a mechanism: it is a rationalization after the fact” (130).

Spontaneous Generation

One of the most critical aspects of the evolutionary controversy for students to grasp is the fanciful notion of spontaneous generation, and the utter failure of Darwinists to demonstrate a solitary instance of its ever having occurred.

It was once believed that nonliving entities had the power to give rise to the living. Maggots, it was assumed, were produced directly by decaying meat; frogs derived from falling drops of rain. Eventually, spontaneous generation was discredited by the work of men such as Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur. In fact, so thoroughly was this concept refuted that scientists now speak of the principle of biogenesis, which indicates that life comes only from preexisting life. In no recorded case has the inorganic (i.e., the nonliving) ever given rise to the organic (i.e., the living).

In truth, the only place spontaneous generation still thrives is in science textbooks. Although evolutionists concede the absence of evidence for spontaneous generation, when it comes to explaining the ultimate origin of life in the universe they nevertheless make recourse to this antiquated theory. Why? Not because the evidence leads them in that direction—for there is none—but because the only other alternative, Special Creation, is profoundly distasteful to them.

A Reasonable Approach

In addition to arming our youngsters with adequate responses to common evolutionary propaganda, it is also beneficial to provide them with some positive arguments in favor of creation. Evolutionists are fond of claiming to have science in their favor, while creationists, they allege, can only appeal to the Bible. Like so many other claims made by Darwinists, this, too, must wither under the heat of intense scrutiny.