Those who preach the theory of evolution have a tendency to pride themselves on being very scientific in their approach. They assert that they do not rely on myths and fables to discern the origin of the universe, but on hard, physical evidence. They assert that all the known facts point to the truthfulness of evolution. They also affirm that anyone who does not believe in evolution is backward, ignorant, naïve, superstitious, or prejudiced. However, when the facts are examined, they do not favor the evolutionist.
As an example, let us consider the origin of species. If the general theory of evolution is true, then all life as we know it had to evolve from one primitive life form: some sort of single-celled organism. In order for this to have occurred, organisms must have changed their form, or mutated, from one kind of organism to another. At some point, some fish (or fish-like organism) must have mutated into another kind of fish. Some fish or other had to mutate into a reptile. At another point, a reptile must have mutated into a mammal. Of course, the list goes on and on and on: in order to produce the vast multitude of species that exist, such mutations must have occurred countless times. However, when this scenario is compared to known facts, it becomes very difficult to believe.
Let us look at animal species. When animals of the same species are bred, fertile offspring are produced. When dogs are bred with dogs, the result is more dogs, and these dogs are generally capable of reproducing. The same thing happens when cats are bred with cats, cattle with cattle, etc. However, when attempts are made to breed animals between species, the result is generally no offspring, dead offspring, or sterile offspring. One very interesting illustration of this fact is the mule.
When a horse is bred with a donkey, the offspring is a mule. Mules are very useful animals, but they are not capable of reproducing themselves. Male mules are always sterile. Female mules are nearly always sterile. In those very rare instances wherein a female mule is fertile, her reproductive organs are identical to those of a horse. In other words, so far as reproduction is concerned, she is essentially a horse. Thus, if one of these rare fertile mules is bred with a male horse, the result is a horse – with no trace whatever of a mule in its makeup. Likewise, if the mule is crossed with a donkey, the result is a mule – precisely as if the donkey had mated with a horse. There is no difference.
The mule, then, is not a species, because it is incapable of reproducing itself. It is a hybrid. And, as noted above, the mule is being discussed here as an example of a general principle: when living offspring are produced by crossing parents of two distinct species, the result is a hybrid, and not a new species. The hybrids are not capable of reproducing themselves. This raises a vital question: seeing that the species are so clearly separate from one another, how could they all have developed from the same form of life? Clearly, if two animals as closely related as the horse and the donkey had truly descended from the same life form, they must have separated from each other quite recently in “evolutionary time”. Since it was only a short time ago (speaking in evolutionary terms) that donkeys and horses were the same species, then it stands to reason that they would still be able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. These fertile offspring would then be a new variation in the evolutionary continuum that produced the horse and the donkey. But, as has been observed, that is not the case. This is just one of countless stubborn facts that will not yield to the evolutionists’ model.
On the other hand, whereas the facts regarding the existence of species stubbornly refuse to submit to the theory of evolution, they are very agreeable to the book of Genesis:
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:24-25).
The Bible says that God created each creature according to its kind. Thus, He created horses, and horses are still reproducing according to their kind, just as He designed them to do. Certainly, there are many different breeds of horse: this shows that God built in a great potential for variation within each kind of creature. However, all of the breeds of horse are still horses. The horse does not change into a different kind of animal from one generation to the next, nor did some other kind of animal change into a horse in the deep dark evolutionary past.
At some point, we stubborn humans are going to have to submit to the even more stubborn facts, and confess that the great evolutionary processes that our children are forced to learn in school do not exist – outside of the imagination of man. There is a God in heaven, and we ought to stop trying to explain Him away.
