Evaluating the case for evolution – Part 1 (Hebrews 11:3)

POST OVERVIEW. The first in a series of posts evaluating the case for evolution from the perspective of a biblical creationist.


In these posts, I will be attempting to objectively explore the fundamental ideas of evolution and then to examine the validity and credibility of these ideas. My purpose for this exercise is to set up the situation where a person like me who holds to a biblical view of creation can examine the case for evolution and see if the evidence for evolution is persuasive. In this exploration, I will also be asking questions of the evolutionist to prompt dialog.

I will begin presenting a small piece of evidence that supports biblical creation. In Hebrews 11:3, the Bible speaks directly to the means by which God created the universe.

By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Here in this verse the Bible states that God created what is seen out of that which is unseen. This means that God created our universe out of nothing, ex nihilo. God used just the power and authority of His word to bring the universe into being.

The teaching of this verse separates those who, by faith, believe the Bible to be the word of God from those who, lacking faith, do not. This verse drives us back to the very start of the Scriptures, to the first words of Genesis when creation is being described and requires us to make a decision. Do we believe that God created the worlds out of that which did not exist or do we think that some form of evolution was responsible for all we see in the creation? The answer to this question reveals whether you have saving faith or you lack it.

Of course, the evolutionist readily admits he does not have faith in God and does not believe the Bible, but we will see that this verse presents a problem for him, nevertheless.


While the proponent of evolution can reject the biblical explanation about God’s creation, he cannot avoid the problem of original material. Why do I say that? I say that because of the very nature of and definition of evolution. Evolution always begins with what already exists and modifies it. Evolution always starts with an existing species and then somehow conceives of an “improvement” in that species to make it more fit to survive. The theory of evolution describes a process whereby existing species improve. Thus evolution requires existing material. For evolution to operate, there must be something already existing that can be evolved. This means that the proponents of evolution must address the issue of origin. What is the source of the original material that was originally subject to “improvement”?

Even if it could be shown that the existence of the breathtaking variety of animals and birds and fish and plants and rocks and mountains and trees on our planet and the spectacular beauty of the uncountable stars in the heavens is the result of an evolutionary process (see below), those who promote evolution must still answer the question of original material. And simply saying, “The big bang,” does not answer the question, but merely throws it into the realm of myth.


As we consider “evolution” more deeply, we see that the nature of evolution itself is mysterious. For example, to make the theory of evolution function, proponents of the theory give to evolution a personality and a will that results in a purpose. It seems that evolution’s one purpose in life is to improve flawed species and make them better able to survive. According to the experts, evolution has been doing this for hundreds of millions or billions of years. To equip evolution for its vital role in our universe, it has also been given the remarkable ability to detect design flaws in any creature in any corner of the earth. And evolution never sleeps. Wherever there is a “design flaw” in any living creature, plant or animal, anywhere on the seven continents, there evolution will be found, working tirelessly over millions of years if necessary to ultimately “create” an improved species. And evolution does all this without any intelligent input from anything outside of itself. What I mean is that evolution appears to do all its remarkable work perpetually and as if by instinct. Evolution just does what it does automatically, spontaneously, perpetually, and independently. This seems like a stretch to me.


Equally curious to me are the “improvements” that evolution makes. According to proponents, evolution is responsible for all the spectacular variety of plant and animal life we see displayed in every corner of the globe. Birds, fish, mammals, insects of all types, trees, plants, grasses, bacteria. Everywhere we see life in all its infinite diversity, there we know that evolution has been at work.

An example of this concept at work requires that at some point in time and for some unknown reason, evolution “decided” that some species of fish was flawed or needed to be improved so that it could become a bird. And so evolution began the process of making incremental changes (“improvements”) over millions of years such that a male and a female of this species of fish would eventually shed their scales and the gills needed for breathing in water, and would abandon the sources of food that they ate as fish, and would emerge from the ocean waves with hollow bones and feather-covered wings with the ability to fly and to make nests and to lay eggs and to breathe air and to eat an entirely new diet of food that just happened to be available right at the place where they emerged from the water.

This seems like a stretch to me. There does not seems to be any evidence to support this sort of evolution ever taking place, nor does this process seem to be possible. But the other question would be, “Why would this ever happen?” In our example, the fish species was functioning and surviving perfectly well before they “evolved.” They had food to survive, they reproduced, they did all they needed to do to live out their days. Why would the fish need to be changed into birds? How would their becoming birds be an improvement? More than that, how would the seismic changes in these fish be sustained over the thousands of generations needed to change a fish to a bird, since at each change, there would need to be a male and a female of the intermediate fish-bird species to keep it going? Again, it seems to be a stretch.

SUMMARY. So far, we have presented three ideas that threaten the credibility of evolution: the origin of matter, evolution’s abilities, and evolution’s improvements. I will continue this examination of evolution in the next post by asking some questions of the evolutionist.

Soli Deo gloria            rmb                 3/20/2023                   #633

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s