BeAmaZedd

^{Published during my homeschooling days back in March 14, 2021
Last updated: October 28, 2023}

In this article, I’d like to discuss why I still studied the unit of evolution at Khan Academy despite my beliefs. I’d also like to share my comments after I studied the theory of evolution. Finally, I’ll share and quote a ton of evidence from our Bible-based publications to prove that we were created and were designed.

Why did I even study the unit in the first place?

Maybe I just wanted to get that 100% mastery for the whole biology course? Hehe

Just kidding! 🙂 (Besides that reason of course:) First, I wanted to see the other side of the argument. I mean, I’ve already heard a lot about creation. So this time, I wanted to see what evolution has to say about the origin of life. 

Second, my parents taught me that Jehovah God created the whole universe and all things in it, including us humans. Meaning, we have not come from monkeys or anything as such; And I totally believe that.

However, I didn’t want to believe in something just because my parents and other people believed it. Instead, I wanted to prove it true to myself in order to believe it.

The brochure The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking says about this matter: “[Students] need to examine the evidence for evolution and for creation and then decide for themselves which they will believe.”¹The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking, “A Student’s Dilemma”, p. 3 Moreover, the Bible encourages us to use our “power of reason” to prove to ourselves the things we are taught, “overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God.”—Romans 12:1, 2; 2 Corinthians 10:5.

Hence, I started studying this unit.

Mastering the unit at Khan Academy

I watched all the instructional videos embedded in the unit and read through all the articles. I took on the practice exercises and the unit test. Now, here’s what I got:

My Comments

I gave the questions given in this unit the answers that Khan Academy wants—that’s why I was able to perfect this. But, I didn’t fully believe in what I’ve learned here. Why? In the previous units on this course, I learned that even the most “simple” cell is very complex. For me, I saw that life requires a Designer, and I saw that it cannot come about by mere blind chance.

Nevertheless, evolution offered some evidence, like the fossil record, which almost convinced me to believe in the theory. And, if I were to do nothing about this, my belief and my faith in the Bible’s account of creation will crumble.

What to do?

For that reason, after I’ve mastered the unit about evolution, I immediately went to jw.org and watched some Was It Designed Video Series:

• The Shark’s Skin
• The Bumblebee’s Flight Control
• Bird Colors That Never Fade

I wanted to watch all the videos in this series besides these three. Unfortunately, time had run out and I needed to attend my next subject. So, I’ve decided to take on a new project for my Science subject next week. I’d like to do further research and thoroughly examine the evidence for evolution and for creation.

Examining the Evidence for Evolution and for Creation

By the end of my subject on Monday, I’ve gathered all the materials I’ll read and watch for the whole week:

• Was It Designed? Video Series
• Was It Designed? Article Series
• Evolution Versus Creation Articles
• The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking
• Was Life Created?
• Viewpoints on the Origin of Life
• What Your Peers Say—Belief in God

I consider these as supplements to the evolution unit. Like I said, there’s a ton of references that discuss about this. So if you also feel the uncertainty of what to believe between creation and evolution, I encourage you to study these, too. 

What I’ve learned—Knocking Evolution Down

After examining the evidence through these publications, I’ve learned that:

1. Life cannot and didn’t originate from non-living molecules

Scientists say that life came from non-living molecules. Yet, despite their best efforts, they were unable to prove this claim. Instead, they’ve concluded that randomly assembling from a pool of chemical building blocks “is so vanishingly small that it’s happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.”²Scientific American, June 2007, pp. 47, 49-50. Additionally, Doctor Carol Cleland says, “The probability of [both proteins and RNA molecules to appear in the same place at the same time to cooperate to form a self-replicating, self-sustaining type of life] happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) seems astronomically low.”³NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine, “Life’s Working Definition​—Does It Work?”

2. We didn’t originate from bacteria

Scientists say that some “simple” prokaryotic cells (e.g. bacteria) swallowed other cells and were able to make radical changes to the ingested cells while replicating. Yet, evolution can’t offer a plausible explanation as to how the first “simple” cell formed by chance. Microbiologist Radu Popa does not agree with the Bible’s account of creation. However, in 2004 he asked: “How can nature make life if we failed with all the experimental conditions controlled?”⁴Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life, by Radu Popa, 2004, p. 129. He also stated: “The complexity of the mechanisms required for the functioning of a living cell is so large that a simultaneous emergence by chance seems impossible.”⁵Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life, pp. 126-127.

3. The DNA proves that all organisms have the same Designer, not the same ancestor

Evolutionists say that because all living organisms share the same code, the DNA, they had the same ancestor. But “could this similarity exist, not because they had the same ancestor, but because they had the same Designer?”⁶The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking, p. 26 Moreover, Francis Crick, a scientist who helped to discover DNA’s double-helix structure, decided that this molecule is far too organized to have come about through undirected events. Additionally, he proposed that intelligent extraterrestrials may have sent DNA to the earth to help get life started here.⁷The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence​—A Philosophical Inquiry, by David Lamb, 2001, p. 83.

4. Natural selection can never produce an entirely new species

Decades ago, evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams began questioning whether natural selection had power to create an entirely new species.⁸Adaption and Natural Selection, by George C. Williams, 1966, p. 54. In 1999, evolutionary theorist Jeffrey H. Schwartz wrote that natural selection may be helping species adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new.⁹Sudden Origins—Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species, by Jeffrey H. Schwartz, 1999, pp. 317-320. “Darwin’s finches are not becoming ‘anything new.’ They are still finches.”¹⁰Was Life Created, “Evolution—Myths and Facts”, p. 21.

5. Random mutation or macroevolution can never produce an entirely new species

Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs using methods that promised to speed up evolution. But after more than 40 years of intensive research, researcher Peter von Sengbusch says, “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure, the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation [to cause mutations], widely proved to be a failure.”¹¹Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 48-51. Furthermore, Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants . . . died or were weaker than wild varieties.”

Even though the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular, and after examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”¹²Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 49, 50, 52, 54, 59, 64, and interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig.

So, “if highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?”¹³Was Life Created?, “Evolution—Myths and Facts”, p. 20.

6. We have no evidence at all that Darwin’s “tree of life” is true

Darwin’s “tree of life” shows that all living things must have evolved from a common ancestor. However, in 1999, biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root…The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”¹⁴Biology and Philosophy, “The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay,” by Malcolm S. Gordon, 1999, p. 335.

Also, in 2009, an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.”¹⁵New Scientist, “Uprooting Darwin’s Tree,” by Graham Lawton, January 24, 2009, p. 34. Additionally, the same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.” ¹⁶New Scientist, January 24, 2009, pp. 37, 39. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Instead, new features appear suddenly.

7. The fossil record is a “jerky record”

Scientists say that fish became amphibians and reptiles became mammals. To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of small fossils.  But, “instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”¹⁷Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” by David M. Raup, January 1979, p. 23.

“The comparative size of the creatures placed in the reptile-to-mammal sequence is sometimes misrepresented in textbooks. Rather than being similar in size, some creatures in the series are huge, while others are small. . . A more serious challenge is the lack of proof that those creatures are somehow related. Specimens placed in the series are often separated by what researchers estimate to be millions of years.”¹⁸The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking, p. 24.

Concerning the time spans that separate the majority of these fossils, zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.”¹⁹In Search of Deep Time​—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, 1999, p. 23. Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, states that the fossil record shows, not that there is a gradual accumulation of change, but that for long periods of time, “little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.”²⁰The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism, by Niles Eldredge, 2000, pp. 49, 85. In conclusion, fossil evidence shows no relationships between different species. And, just like how David M. Raup puts it, it’s a “jerky record.” 

8. The human evolution fossil record doesn’t show when and how humans evolved from apelike creatures

In 2007, the discoverers of another claimed link in the evolutionary tree published an article in the science journal Nature. But, they said that nothing is known about when or how the human line actually emerged from the line of apes.²¹Nature, “A New Species of Great Ape From the Late Miocene Epoch in Ethiopia,” by Gen Suwa, Reiko T. Kono, Shigehiro Katoh, Berhane Asfaw, and Yonas Beyene, August 23, 2007, p. 921.

Gyula Gyenis, a researcher at the Department of Biological Anthropology, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary, wrote in 2002: “The classification and the evolutionary place of hominid fossils has been under constant debate.” This author also states that the fossil evidence gathered so far brings us no closer to knowing exactly when, where, or how humans evolved from apelike creatures.²²Acta Biologica Szegediensis, Volume 46(1-2), “New Findings​—New Problems in Classification of Hominids,” by Gyula Gyenis, 2002, pp. 57, 59.

9. Brain size does not determine one’s intelligence

In 2008, Scientific American Mind stated: “Scientists have failed to find a correlation between absolute or relative brain size and acumen among humans and other animal species. Neither have they been able to discern a parallel between wits and the size or existence of specific regions of the brain, excepting perhaps Broca’s area, which governs speech in people.”²³Scientific American Mind, “Intelligence Evolved,” by Ursula Dicke and Gerhard Roth, August/​September 2008, p. 72.

Meaning, brain size does not absolutely indicate how intelligent a person is. Now, a lot of questions arise: “Why do scientists line up the fossils used in the “ape-to-man” chain according to brain size when it is known that brain size is not a reliable measure of intelligence? And why are researchers constantly debating which fossils should be included in the human “family tree”? Could it be that the fossils they study are just what they appear to be, extinct forms of apes?”²⁴The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking, p. 28.

Most probably and most likely. That’s why we can come up with the conclusion that…

10. Evolutionists are biased

For many years, researchers do not acknowledge that the vast majority of fossils​ showed that species change very little over time. Why do they not talk about such important evidence? Author Richard Morris says: “Apparently paleontologists had adopted the orthodox idea of gradual evolutionary change and had held onto it, even when they discovered evidence to the contrary. They had been trying to interpret fossil evidence in terms of accepted evolutionary ideas.”²⁵The Evolutionists​—The Struggle for Darwin’s Soul, by Richard Morris, 2001, pp. 104-105.

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story​—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”²⁶In Search of Deep Time—​Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117. Correspondingly, you may ask, “Could it be that [evolutionists] continue to place fossils in a certain order, not because such a sequence is well-supported by the majority of fossil and genetic evidence, but because doing so is in harmony with currently accepted evolutionary ideas?”²⁷The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking, “Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?”, p. 26. So, it seems that evolutionists keep on pushing on with their theory even though they know that the evidence they find clearly proves the entire opposite.

The Fossil Ida

Another example is that the media often widely broadcasts the announcement that a new “missing link”²⁸a hypothetical fossil form intermediate between two living forms, especially between humans and apes. has been discovered. For example, in 2009 a fossil called Ida was uncovered with what one journal called “rock-star hype²⁹Meaning, “promotional publicity of an extravagant or contrived kind.”.”³⁰New Scientist, “A Fine Fossil​—But a Missing Link She’s Not,” by Chris Bead, May 30, 2009, p. 18.

Additionally, publicity included this headline in The Guardian newspaper of the United Kingdom (a very known company): “Fossil Ida: Extraordinary Find Is ‘Missing Link’ in Human Evolution.”³¹The Guardian, London, “Fossil Ida: Extraordinary Find Is ‘Missing Link’ in Human Evolution,” by James Randerson, May 19, 2009. However, just days later, the UK science journal New Scientist said: “Ida is not a ‘missing link’ in human evolution.³²New Scientist, May 30, 2009, pp. 18-19. Now the question is: “Why is each unveiling of a new “missing link” given wide media attention, whereas the removal of that fossil from the “family tree” is hardly mentioned?”³³The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking, “ANNOUNCEMENTS OF “MISSING LINKS””, p. 26.

Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact? Richard Lewontin, an influential evolutionist, frankly wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”³⁴“Materialism,” in this sense, refers to a theory that everything in the universe, including all life, came into existence without any supernatural intervention in the process. ³⁵Was Life Created?, “Belief in Evolution—An Act of “Faith””, p. 22. Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”³⁶The New York Review of Books, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” by Richard C. Lewontin, January 9, 1997, pp. 28-32.

Final Words

After going through all the available evidence for evolution and for creation, the question is: “Is it reasonable to believe the Bible’s account of creation?” I find the answers in this article very promising.

Not only millions of ordinary people (such as myself) realize and believe that life did not exist by evolution. Rather, thousands of orthopedic surgeons, software designers, embryologists, brain pathologists, biotechnologists, microbiologists, and many more changed their view of the origin of life. Read their experiences here to know how and why.

If you made it down here, thank you so much! I hope this article helped you clarify some things between creation and the theory of evolution. If you want to share your comments about the topic, please put it down in the Comments section below. Thanks!