Science and Evolution

Perhaps, as we journey through life, we, as seniors, have found it easy to let ourselves be led, or mislead, on our journey.  It seems to me to be a sound plan to constantly reevaluate our beliefs.  What follows is an honest attempt to do that.

Maybe senior citizens are not as quick to accept some beliefs as others, or maybe we more willing to question positions more commonly accepted.  This senior citizen does not accept the theory of evolution as fact.

In February of 1977, nearly 200 members of the academic community in the United States sent letters to school boards across the country, urging that only evolution be taught, to the exclusion of creationism.

A Compelling Position?

Why would they feel the need to do that?  Do they feel the threat of a rising revolt against the stereotyped, contradictory versions being promoted by their theory?

Many students are looking for honest answers to their questions about the origin and purpose of life.  From where do I come?  Why am I here?  What’s the purpose of my life?  Where am I going?  This need forces the stale traditions of evolution to go on the defensive.  Evolution simply has no answers to the questions about the beginnings of humanity or the purposes of humanity. 

For many years evolutionists espoused the theory of spontaneous generation.  According to Webster, spontaneous generation is "the generation of living from nonliving matter …” It is taken from the belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it.

This theory simply says that under the proper conditions of temperature, time, place, etc., a matter that decayed just turns into organic life.  This theory was shattered in 1846 when Louis Pasteur’s experiments proved the error of the theory.

A Problem

This creates a huge problem for evolutionists.  Since the first amoeba, or monad, or whatever formed the first cell of life has been scientifically demonstrated to be impossible from spontaneous generation, the foundation of evolution is destroyed.  It contradicts a basic law of nature that forms the foundation of the entire theory.

But, without believing in spontaneous generation, evolutionists would now have to acknowledge something other than natural forces at work -- in other words, GOD.  How do they get around this dilemma?

The Nobel Prize winner, Dr. George Wald, of Harvard University, states the problem this way: "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." Scientific American, August 1954.

Isn’t that interesting?  The great evolutionary scientist says it could not have happened.  It was impossible.  Yet, he still believes it did happen.  At least the creationist believes that God was able to speak life into existence.  The creationist does not need to believe in something that he concedes to be impossible.  A Christian does not have a blind faith.

The Most Authoritative Source

Why is Dr. Wald so violently opposed to the spontaneous generation spoken of in the Bible?  Either God did it by divine fiat, or blind, unintelligent nature produced Wald’s impossible act.  Does it not take more faith that simple chance could produce life than it does to believe infinite intelligence could produce it?

Any Christian who confessed to such a faith would quickly be labeled as gullible and naive.  What a difference the cloak of higher education makes upon our easily impressed minds! How much simpler and sweeter the faith that accepts the inspired account: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).

Please share your thoughts and any response you may have in the form below.

Return to

Bible Study Guides

It Is Written

Amazing Facts


Please note that all fields followed by an asterisk must be filled in.