Evolution: Mixing Science and Anti-Science


creation_day_genesisA lot (the vast majority, actually) of people call themselves, creationists, and that’s good. Even though some of these mix bad, scientifically-unsupported ideas with creation science, that’s still better than believing in scientifically impossible materialistic evolution.

But while being partially right is better than being completely wrong, is it really sufficient to hold to an idea or ideas that are scientifically untenable and wrong?

I used to be a theistic evolutionist. This means that I believed God created the universe and everything in it, but I also believed God probably used evolution over billions of years to make the universe (earth, in particular) the way it is today.

But that was before I realized that evolution is not supported by science.  You see, even if you mix in a little creation science and suppose that God kick-started life in the beginning (materialistic evolutionists have a harder time still, having to explain how life began when science demonstrates that life does not-never, EVER has-come from lifeless materials), you’re still left with the fact that evolution has never been observed taking place either in the lab or in the field. Even after watching countless quickly-reproducing generations of bacteria for decades, in the end, you still have…bacteria.  And that’s also without getting into the materialistic evolutionist’s problems of dealing with matter coming into existence from nothing, disorganized matter (that came into existence from nothing) spontaneously organizing itself into higher functional forms of matter, etc.

Not only did I not realize that evolution isn’t supported by science, I also didn’t realize that evolution simply doesn’t fit what the Bible says about how the universe came to be.  Read it for yourself. You just can’t make evolution fit the Genesis account without all sorts of wild gyrations and “creative” interpretations of what is stated pretty plainly and simply. Evolution and billions of years also won’t fit the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You have to believe one or the other, evolution or the Bible; they can’t both be right.

I also didn’t realize that there are many scientifically supported creation science theories that fit the evidence we see in the world around us-and those theories usually fit the evidence better than materialist and evolutionist theories. Not only is evolution a bad theory, there’s no need to believe in a bad theory for lack of a good one.

So all the gyrations I used to do, believing in gap theories, day-age theories and all that, were not only completely  unnecessary, but they harmonize with neither the Bible nor the materialistic evolutionist’s account.

In order for a belief to be reliable, it must be logically consistent, and it must conform to observable evidence. If a belief is contradicted by either logic or observable evidence (or both), it cannot be a reliable belief, and should be abandoned.

Materialistic evolution is contradicted by observable science on many levels. Therefore, it cannot be a reliable belief.

Theistic evolution is contradicted by both observable science and by the Bible. Therefore, it, too, cannot be a reliable belief.

Only taking God at his word (i.e. believing he meant what he said) is supported by both observable science and by God’s account of the creation of the universe. Creation science is the only belief that is consistent within its own framework of assumptions, and that is supported by the evidence.

So objective analysis makes it pretty clear where we should look for answers about ourselves and the universe in which we live.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year U.S. Air Force veteran, a political reporter and commentator for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for over 20 years. He was a founding member and board member of the Tea Party groups Citizens for Liberty and the South Dakota Tea Party Alliance. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly
  • DCM7

    Uh-oh, another “evolution” article. I expect to see the comments any time now along the lines of “All the qualified scientists say it’s true, so it must be true! And you’re an ignorant idiot if you don’t accept that!”

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      Yes, evolutionists are usually so insecure about their faith that they feel compelled to rush out to any article that reveals their emperor has no clothes and try to reassure themselves.

      I remember a commercial that got a lot of air time when I was a kid: “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”

      • DCM7

        Well, it’s to be expected. For the person who refuses to answer to God, pretty much everything depends on their ability to convince themselves that he isn’t real in the first place. Evolutionism may be a pathetically poor attempt to explain creation without the Creator, but it’s the only one they’ve got.
        Or, as someone has said, “A lie is a poor substitute for the truth, but it’s the only one that’s been discovered so far.”

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis


          You know, as scary as it is to face up to the fact that you’ve been wrong about something, I’ve always found it even more scary to consider ignoring the fact that you’ve been wrong about something. That’s why I no longer believe in evolution.

  • Pingback: Creationist Wisdom #535: Evolution Isn’t Science | The Sensuous Curmudgeon()

  • franklinb23

    Actually, there are a lot of Christians who believe in evolution, but that it was a “guided process”.

    I am certainly not a young Earther, but I also do NOT find some core elements of evolution plausible. Micro-evolution? Sure. We see it with bacteria and viruses.

    However, I don’t see how a complex biological system (such as the circulatory system) can exist as a partial construct and sufficiently enable an organism to live long enough to reproduce and pass that genetic material on to another organism. It defies reason to think it could happen.

    This is basically the problem of irreducible complexity, and I’ve yet to hear anyone provide a satisfactory explanation from a scientific standpoint. A circulatory system without a heart gets you nothing. You won’t take your first breath, let alone exist to pass this mess on to something else.

    That being said, while creation is complex, it is also odd. It also doesn’t really provide a moral narrative in itself if taken for what it is. Life in all its cycles seems to require a certain amount of predatory behavior as well as death, disease and suffering. You have to look at some transcendent explanation (outside of nature) to explain nature. To me, the “natural law” implies nothing more than nihilism.

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      Yes, I used to be one of those Christians who believed in evolution…until I realized the things I outlined in the article.

      “Micro-evolution” isn’t evolution at all, certainly not in the sense it is intended by Darwinists/evolutionists/materialists. Small changes within a particular type of organism fall within the overall genetic diversity that, according to creation science, each “kind” (e.g. canines, felines, etc.) was originally created with. That, and the relatively small number of mutations that occur (due to the decay of The Fall) which do not produce NEW genetic information and are almost always negative for the organism. In the end, even countless generations later, a dog is still a dog, a cat is still a cat, etc. (You may end up with Dobermans and poodles, etc. due to genetic manipulation and isolation, but you still just have a variation of a DOG).

      You’re absolutely right about irreducible complexity. There are countless examples of biological functions which have no purpose without the whole (or at least a much greater portion of the whole).

      What many honest people fail to take into account when observing our universe is that it was never intended to operate in the state in which we now find it. In other words, God created it in a perfect state (i.e. without death, without disease, without sin), and because of humanity’s rebellion (humanity was set in authority/dominion over creation), all of creation fell under the curse just like an entire company would suffer along with a CEO who got busted for some major crime. We were never intended to get sick, grow old and die, and animals were originally created as herbivores (as were people). As the Bible puts it:

      20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. (Romans 8:20-22)

    • DCM7

      “This is basically the problem of irreducible complexity, and I’ve yet to hear anyone provide a satisfactory explanation from a scientific standpoint.”
      It’s always good to hear from someone who has that level of insight and honesty on the subject. If anything, you’ve made an understatement.

  • Eric Collier

    I claim the opposite story. I once believed the Bible was the inspired word of God and the universe was created in 6 days. Then I looked at the evidence, blushed with embarrassment, and, to quote scripture, put away childish things. I know you have statistics on your side-most Americans swallow the whole creationist pill. But statistics don’t decide what’s scientific and what’s mystical twaddle.

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      You’re right: numbers and statistics don’t determine what is logical and scientific, and what’s mystical twaddle. It’s a pity more evolutionists don’t seem to realize that that when they preen about all the obtuse scientists who buy the unscientific hypothesis of evolution.

      Me, I blush with embarrassment that I ever put such blind faith in an idea like evolution that is scientifically contradicted on several fronts within the framework of its own assumptions.

    • DCM7

      “I once believed the Bible was the inspired word of God and the universe was created in 6 days. Then I looked at the evidence…”

      I’d be interested to know what “evidence” you looked at, and how thoroughly, honestly and critically you looked at it. That part is missing from your story. And I have a feeling that’s not the only thing that’s missing.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if you had questions about the Bible vs. evolution when you were younger, and got thoroughly inadequate answers from people who were supposedly equipped to defend the former. Or perhaps it wasn’t so much that “evidence” changed your mind, as it was that you had other reasons for turning away and grasped at whatever “evidence” would seem to do the trick.

      I speak as one who has looked at the evidence, as cited and interpreted within both viewpoints, enough to know that said evidence doesn’t remotely begin to support evolutionism, and has to be forcibly manipulated just to appear that it does. When I hear someone say they looked at the “evidence” and thus HAD to accept evolutionism, I know there’s something wrong with that picture.