The debate between evolution and creation is of paramount importance. It is perhaps the most significant apologetic issue of our time. In reality we are asking, "Is there a God?" There are so-called theistic evolutionists - those who believe that God caused evolution and therefore God and Darwinism can peacefully coexist - but ultimately Darwinism does away with the need for God.
Refuting the theory (yes, it's just a theory) of evolution is fairly simple. There are volumes written on the topic, but you just need to remember a few basic things.
The Fossil Record Does Not Support It
One of the most painful realities Darwinists face today is the fossil record. Once expected to provide the evidence to support Darwin's theories, paleontology has now shot it full of holes. The humor of G.K Chesterson says much about this development,
"Folks seem to know everything about the missing link, except that it IS MISSING."
In a following page we will see several quotations from evolutionists and agnostic paleontologists. These are not believers, and yet they challenge the validity of Darwinism in their own words. You will see by these quotations that the big problem with the fossil record is the lack of evidence of transitional forms.
What are transitional forms? They are the in-between stages that every evolutionary being would go through in order to evolve to a higher form. Several months ago I was riding on an airplane seated next to a scientist in the field of optical technology. He explained to me that he was working on electronic methods of recreating the capabilities of the human eye. At one point he peaked my interest when he noted that it was challenging, "... because the human eye has had billions of years to evolve."
The problem with this premise is this: If the eye has evolved from nothing into a functional eye over the last billion years, why is there absolutely no evidence of partially evolved eyes? If legs evolved into wings, where are the partially developed wings or extremities that are half-wing and half-leg? Where are the fossils of forms between ape and man? I'm not asking for the one or two that are questionable (Nebraska Man, Lucy), but where are the millions that we should be tripping over? Missing.
As I am writing this, Time Magazine has just published an article (August 23,1999 issue) about the evolution of mankind. The cover has a picture of a human skull formed out of clay with a few recently discovered bone fragments pressed into place. The cover reads How Man Evolved and the title of the article is Up From The Apes. The article and many like it concern me because they place a great deal of speculation squarely in the realm of fact.
The article is full of information about researchers and paleontologists that have discovered a few bone fragments and developed complete skeletons from them, primarily through speculation. Of most interest, however, is the overriding theme of the article. The writers conclude that man has not evolved in a linear fashion from ape to human, but rather in a series of parallel efforts. This conclusion is drawn from the fact that each time scientists discover a supposed ancient ancestor, a new discovery is made alongside indicating that modern humans (Neanderthals, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo sapien) also existed at that time.
Could it be that the Bible is right? Could it be that mankind has existed from the beginning and animals such as chimps and apes lived alongside man rather than before him? Thankfully, many are not deceived by the continual conjecture. The same issue of Time Magazine also reported that the Kansas State school board recently voted to eliminate the teaching of evolutionary theory from the state's curriculum. It is not surprising that Time published the article at a time when the creation/evolution debate is peaking in a backlash against such a remarkable decision.