It is a well-known fact that if you repeat a thing long enough, many people will believe it to be true. Even more people will believe something to be true if it is asserted with great confidence and by those who are presumed to know what they are affirming. This is what has happened with the theory of evolution. Zoologists, scientists, professors and other scholars claim that evolution is true. Though a “theory,” Darwinism is presented as absolute fact, both in public schools, colleges, universities, books, internet, social media, news outlets, TV shows and movies. I remind the reader that a “theory” is something that has not yet been proven. It is a supposition.
For one hundred years, geneticists have believed that the fruit fly might provide the evolutionary evidence that has been lacking. These flies were selected for their short generation times and for having only four pairs of chromosomes. However, according to a recent study, after one hundred years of research, in laboratories all over the world, scientists have concluded that the fruit flies are the same as they were one hundred years ago. Their DNA is unchanged. This was the result, even after the fruit flies were “subjected to all manner of mutation-inducing phenomena, including hosts of chemicals and radiation treatments, to try and accelerate evolution-mimicking mutations.”
Though they bristle when they are accused of believing that humans descended from apes (they prefer the language that apes and humans had similar ancestry, whatever that was), evolutionists are quick to point out the physical similarities between apes and humans. They do this to promote the concept of evolution. Schoolbooks contain fancy graphics depicting the stooped over primate gradually advancing through various phases of stature to a fully erect human being. They have for years touted “Lucy,” (which they claim to be some type of ape) as the missing link. This is quite disingenuous of them, for they deride Creationists for misrepresenting them when we represent them as teaching that humans descended from apes. Perhaps they will explain to us just exactly what type of primate Lucy really was! Regarding the matter of physical similarities between animals, the evolutionist fails to consider the possibility that a Creator might design various creatures alike (which is exactly what God did).
Regardless of the quibble, the fact remains that we now have thousands of years of recorded history, including drawings and pictures of humans, monkeys, and apes, and they all look like they always did! Apes are still apes and humans are still humans. The evolutionist calls this observation simplistic, but at some point their theory must factor in reality. Perhaps the evolutionist should prove his theory of evolution before ridiculing others for what they believe regarding origins.
Those of us who affirm the creation model of origins [Genesis 1] are accused of being “fools” for believing in an unprovable model of origins, yet the evolutionist also has his unprovable model. Is he also a “fool?” Or is he just a hypocrite for calling Bible-believers fools? We are told that, “the fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God’” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The design and orderly arrangement of the universe do imply the existence of an intelligent designer (Psalm 19:1, 2; Romans 1:20; Acts 14:17).
—Tim Haile