The Origins of Man: Fact vs. Story

Introduction:

      “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground—then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.” (Genesis 2:4-7). Or perhaps not. Scientists now tell us what “really” happened.

      13.7 billion years ago infinitely dense, infinitely small matter exploded, hurling itself into the vacuum of space. About 4.6 billion years ago, a homogenous solid earth formed whose crust finally solidified 3.8 billion years ago. About 3.5 billion years ago, life came from the nonliving. Evolution had begun. Through natural selection, multicellular organisms developed and eventually produced every form of life that has ever existed on the planet. Fish evolved 500-450 million years ago. Reptiles evolved 300-200 million years ago. Mammals appeared 200 million years ago. Chimps and hominids evolved 20-12 million years ago. These hominids began to walk on two feet about 4 million years ago. Australopithecines existed from 4 to 1 million years ago. Homo erectus existed 1.6 million to 200,000 years ago. Neanderthal man existed 200,000-30,000 years ago. Man, as we know him, evolved into existence 50,000 years ago.

      These are our choices. How did we get here? Are we the crowning achievement of God’s creation week? Or are we merely the latest accidental occurrence in a blind process of progressive change?

      Here is my problem. I am a preacher, not a scientist. The minute I start listening to scientists talk, I start to lose consciousness. They use words I can’t keep track of. They speak about discoveries I can’t remember. They talk about “facts” I have to take on faith in their honesty. Even when I listen to scientists who are Christians, I get confused. Therefore, I try to keep things simple, getting to the heart of the matter, discovering what makes the most sense to me. Is there any evidence in the real world that contradicts what the Bible says about how man became a living being? My answer is a resounding, “No!”

Discussion:

I.         Science vs. the Real World

A.      The real world is what is out there, the way it is. It is governed by laws, some of which we have discovered, some of which we have not. Science is not the real world. Science, which comes from the Latin word for “knowledge,” is man’s way of interpreting what he has observed in the real world. He does this based on tests and experimentation. Often, further observation causes scientists to say what used to be science is no longer valid. For instance, there was a time when science claimed life could come from non-life. Everybody had observed it. If they laid out a piece of meat, gnats and flies would spontaneously generate from it. It was verified by repeated observation until the 1860’s when Louis Pasteur proved spontaneous generation doesn’t happen. The real world was always like that even though science didn’t know it. (An aside: scientists try to disprove this today because evolution demands spontaneous generation happened at least once. They have yet to assail the science of Louis Pasteur.)

B.     Regarding the supposed evolution of man, science constantly changes. Jerry DeSilva, Life Science Interpretation Coordinator of the Boston Museum of Science, demonstrates this point in a paper intended to help teachers know how to teach evolution in the classroom. He wrote, “Since Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, paleoanthropologists have been searching for fossil evidence of our past, and fiercely debating hypotheses for human ancestry. Many popular ideas have come and gone, and some of the most enthusiastically endorsed hypotheses have withered in light of new evidence. Just this year, two newly discovered fossil hominids have forced paleoanthropologists to reanalyze the evolution of bipedalism in our ancestors.”[1] The real world and the truth is out there. Science is merely searching to find out what the real world really says. Sometimes scientists say, “What we said about the real world last week was wrong.” Keep that in mind. The folks we talk to act as though science has all the facts. In reality, science is a lot like Bible study. Have you ever thought you had a passage figured out, but then studied it later to discover you were mistaken? Science is like that, only it is studying the world. Sadly, many scientists, even supposedly Christian ones, are studying the world with a debilitating and dishonest bias. We see the bias as we define science.

C.     What is science to the evolutionist? Encyclopedia Brittanica defines “science” saying, “On the simplest level, science is knowledge of the world of nature.” But later states, “Science, then is to be considered in this article as knowledge of natural regularities that is subjected to some degree of skeptical rigour and explained by rational causes.”[2] If you are not careful you can miss what is important in this definition. Did you see the phrases “natural regularities” and “rational cause”? Natural, in this definition, is opposed to supernatural. Rational is opposed to philosophical, spiritual or theological. Science, according to this definition, only allows for the examination of the natural. It will not allow the possibility of the supernatural. No matter what is studied, the scientist working from this definition is not allowed to see God as part of what happened. No matter what evidence these scientists see, they are not allowed to see God. Some will be quick to say, “We are not saying God does not exist. We are only saying as we examine the world we have to look for explanations without resorting to, ‘God did this supernaturally.’” But, in the end, what is the difference? Whether you say God is non-existent or merely uninvolved you come out in the same place. According to those who follow this definition, when we look at the evidence in the world, we are not allowed to see God; we have to develop theories that exclude God. Evolution, therefore, begins on a godless foundation. Evolutionary scientists, therefore, don’t arrive at evolution because the evidence demands God played no part. They arrive at evolution by removing the possibility of God’s involvement before they even look at the evidence.

D.     Romans 1:18-21 says the real world attests to the existence and nature of God. Psalm 19:1-2 says the heavens declare the handiwork of God. Many of us look to the grand design of our galaxy and see a Grand Designer. We see the intricate detail of something as microscopic as a cell or atom and see an Intricate Detailer. Every house is built by someone and the builder of all things is God says Hebrews 3:4. But that is the one thing most scientists refuse to see. By their definition of “science,” they cannot allow God’s involvement in building this house. They have shackled themselves with dishonest criteria. Despite what looks like design surrounding us and in us, they refuse to allow that option. Even those who allow for the hope that God might be out there, refuse to see God no matter where they look down here. Sadly, even some Christian scientists take this approach and come up with the untenable hybrid, “Theistic Evolution.”

II.       The origin of species.

A.      What I am about to share is, I think, one of the most important points to keep in mind whenever you read or hear anything about the evolution of species, especially humans. “Evolution in the broadest sense means change.”[3] But the Theory of Evolution is more than just change. Evolution is “the process by which organisms change from generation to generation, producing forms that are adapted to changes in the environment and eventually give rise to new species.”[4] We are told “The only scientifically tenable explanation for both biological diversity and order is the theory of evolution.”[5] But remember, that is the only scientifically tenable theory for those who believe science means you can’t have God involved.

B.     There is a problem. Evolution is all about the rise of new species. However, nobody actually knows what a species is. The concept of species was originated by a man named Carolus Linnaeus in the 1700s. It was part of science. Do you remember what that is? It is man’s attempt to interpret what he sees in the real world. It is not the real world itself. The development of species was not brought down from a mountaintop carved in stone. There is nothing anywhere in the world that says we even ought to divide animals into species. This was merely one man describing what he observed and trying to catalogue it. Since that time, evolutionists have adopted the species nomenclature and used it to support their theory. You may have heard the standard definition for a species. “The most widely accepted definition of a species is the biological species concept proposed by Ernst Mayr in the 1940s. A species is a population of individual organisms that can interbreed in nature, mating and producing fertile offspring in a natural setting. Species are organisms that share the same gene pool, and therefore genetic and morphological similarities.”[6] However, did you notice the first few words—“The most widely accepted definition.” The Gale Encyclopedia of Science goes on to say in the very same article: “Currently, the precise definition of a species is a topic under constant scientific debate and likely will never fully be resolved. Rather, the definition may change with the perspectives and needs of each sub-discipline within biology.”[7] Wow! Men made up the concept of species. They can’t agree on what it really is and admit they probably never will. Further, scientists get to change the definition of species as it fits the needs of their perspective. Why am I the one called dishonest?

C.     Allow me to share with you the actual confusion that exists out there regarding the nature of determining species from fossils. Consider the following statements that come from the aforementioned article by Jerry DeSilva on how to teach evolution. He spoke of two different evolutionists who have two entirely different modes of looking at fossils and determining species—Tim White is considered a “lumper” and Ian Tattersall a “splitter.”

1.      “Currently, there are two modes of thought in categorizing human ancestors: the ‘lumpers’, who tend to group fossils into relatively few species, and the ‘splitters’, who use measurable differences as evidence for prolific speciation in our past. Each uses the same measurements, and the same fossils, but interpret the results differently.”[8]

2.      “Tim White, a professor of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, uses the variation that exists within a species today to understand the fossil record. This strategy has landed him within the ‘lumper’ category. ‘Right now, there is oversplitting going on by modern people inferring too many fossil species based on the differences they see between fossils, when the same differences are seen among skulls from a single modern species, for example, chimpanzees, or gorillas, or humans,’ says Dr. White. ‘This is a good indication that naming many of the newer fossils as different species is not warranted.’”[9]

3.      “Regarded now as a ‘splitter,’ Ian Tattersall, the curator of the Anthropology division of the American Museum of Natural History in New York, is influenced by his first research interest, lemurs. Fifty species of lemur reside on the island of Madagascar, and by looking only at their skeletons, one may be hard pressed to find enough measurable differences to distinguish all fifty species. Fur color, ovulatory cycles, behavior patterns, communication methods, and genetics do not fossilize. Therefore, even the slightest difference in skeletal morphology might constitute evidence for a new species. Tattersall studied lemur taxonomy for many years and now sees the same diversity in the human fossil record.”[10]

4.      “Tim White, a lumper, looks at the fossil record and sees variation within a few species. Ian Tattersall, a splitter, sees diversity and recognizes many different species. To highlight the difference, consider the following example. One million years from now, would a future paleontologist be able to tell that a 7’2” basketball player like Shaquille O’Neal was a member of the same species as a 5’2” actor like Danny DeVito? This is the challenge to a paleoanthropologist; trying to decide whether a new fossil discovery represents a new species, or a variant of an already recognized animal.”[11] Consider all the differences in people today, how would they tell what species each of us were? What if they found the skeleton of a dwarf, hunchback, Siamese twins or someone with rickets?

5.      It is not enough to just show this confusion, let me also show you the dishonesty with which evolutionists deal with this confusion. DeSilva, and I remind you his paper is intended to instruct teachers in how to teach evolution, told the story of a 1972 discovery of a skull labeled KNM-ER 1470 (KNM, because it is now housed in the Kenya National Museum; ER, because it was discovered East (Lake) Rudolph in Kenya). DeSilva informs us that after a few months’ study, the skull was labeled Homo habilis. However, a different anthropologist studied the same skull and said, “Nope, it’s something different.” He labeled it Homo rudolfensis. Meave Leakey discovered a different fossil in 2001 and named it Kenyanthropus platyops. Some say it is like the 1470 skull so they must be connected. They have relabeled 1470 Kenyanthropus rudolfensis. DeSilva goes on to write, “So, what is 1470? Some still say it is a Homo habilis. Some say it is a Homo rudolfensis. And now, some call it a Kenyanthropus rudolfensis. This can be confusing to teachers and students alike. Ultimately though, the names do not matter. The creature that died and left what we call 1470 lived approximately 1.8 million years ago. No one argues that fact. Whether 1470 was a habilis or a rudolfensis should not be the focus in a classroom. As Tim White suggests, ‘Why confuse your students with this? Get them onto relationships, not names.’” We don’t have time to get into the issues of dating fossils. However, we need to know names matter. What if someone labeled the skull Homo sapien (human) or Pongo pygmaeus (orangutan)? These names matter because these man made names cause this whole thing to fit in an evolutionary structure. If these fossils are nothing more than variants of animals we already know there is no speciation and no evidence for the theory of evolution. Here is the fact, scientists really don’t know what these different fossils represent. Are they merely variants of modern species? Are they fossils of extinct species? If they are different than modern species, what are they? What did they look like? And how did they get there? Did they really give rise to a new species? If so, what species? Scientists do not know the answers to any of these questions. Rather, since they are already convinced of evolution’s veracity, they interpret them to fit their already preconceived notions. They cannot even agree on what they actually mean. But then they want us to sweep these disagreements under the rug. We are told essentially, “Our confusion doesn’t matter. The fact that we cannot agree on what the evidence actually means doesn’t matter. What matters is we know evolution is true.” Consider this following quote from The Encyclopedia Brittanica: “The fossil evidence of the australopithecines has been seen by some scholars as merely representing temporal stages within a single evolving hominid lineage leading to Homo erectus and thence to Homo sapiens. Others have stressed the extent of the adaptive differences between the various fossils and have suggested that there may have been two, or even three, lineages evolving in parallel, only one of which led to the later species Homo. Whatever the details of their interpretations, however, most hominid paleontologists are agreed that the australopithecines represent a link—direct or indirect—between the fossil apes and human beings.”[12] Did you see it? Scientists can’t agree what the fossils represent. However, we should not concern ourselves with their disagreement, at least they all agree it is evolution.

D.     Look at what the Bible says. In Genesis 1:11-12, “And God said, ‘Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind on the earth,’ And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.” In Genesis 1:21, “So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.” In Genesis 1:24, “And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.’ And it was so.” Kind after kind. But what is that kind? We don’t really know. But we can say this. Cats give birth to cats. Dogs give birth to dogs. Apes give birth to apes. Humans give birth to humans. Due to genetics, there might be variation within these kinds, but no apes give birth to humans or vice versa. Why then should we suspect Australopithecines gave birth to Homo habilis, who gave birth to Homo erectus, who gave birth to Homo sapien? Or any other family tree someone might invent?

E.     What has scientific observation actually told us? No one through observation has ever seen one kind give birth to another kind. Even the scientists who study rapidly regenerating species have never seen one kind of creature become another even through a series of generational shifts, changes or mutations. No one has ever found a fossil that proved any kind of transition. In fact, that is impossible. No matter what a fossil ever shows, the reality is God could have made a kind that was just like that fossil. The fossil record can never prove transition from one species to another. The only thing it can be used for is people picking and choosing fossils and placing them in an order they think demonstrates progression. For all we know, the various fossils only represent different kinds created by God or variations within the kinds created by God.

III.      The descent of man.

A.      Here is where the rubber meets the road. We have all seen pictures demonstrating the evolution of man. We have all heard the weird names like australopithecus, Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon and Homo sapien. Please keep this in mind when you see the pictures. All the archeologists find is bone. Most of the time, they only find fragments. They do not know what the nose or ears looked like. From the bones they cannot tell how much hair was on the person or animal. All of those things are filled in based on how the scientist wants it to fit in his evolutionary paradigm. When you see those progressive charts, you are not seeing what has been proven, but what some scientists postulate might have occurred based on their interpretation of the evidence.

B.     The Gale Encyclopedia of Science states something very interesting. “Evolutionary change occurs as a result of mutation, migration, genetic drift and natural selection, and it is ultimately a passive process, devoid of any purpose or goal. As a scientific theory, it is an interconnected series of statements, corroborated by a large body of evidence; thus, biologists accept the historical reality of evolution as a fact, even though the details of how it works are still being investigated.”[13] Did you catch the interesting admission? Biologists accept evolution as fact even though they don’t know how it worked. There is supposedly a large body of evidence out there, but no evidence that shows how or if evolution really worked. But, never fear, the biologists agree to accept it as fact so it must be true.

C.     Consider the following admission in the Encyclopedia Americana: “The theory of evolution serves as the underlying assumption of every biological science and as such represents the field’s greatest unifying theme.”[14] To be fair, the encyclopedia does not mean scientists have merely assumed evolution. Most scientists really believe the evidence has demonstrated the evolution of man. I show you this quote to demonstrate how evidence is handled. As evidence is discovered, the scientists never question whether it supports evolution or not. Evolution is assumed. They merely allow the evidence to affect how they will say evolution happened.

D.     With this in mind, it is not surprising that someone like Richard Dawkins in his book The Blind Watchmaker said, “The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. Even if the evidence did not favour it, it would still be the best theory available.”[15] To be fair, Dawkins believes the evidence does favor the theory of evolution, but what is Dawkins admitting? From his scientific perspective, no matter what the evidence ever reports, evolution is the only answer. Do you think that mindset may affect how he interprets the evidence he does find? What would happen if I made a statement like that? What if I said, “Even if the evidence did not favor the Genesis account of creation, it would still be the best theory available”? I would be accused of dishonesty. But Dawkins can say it and it’s science? Interestingly enough, Dawkins should be ashamed of himself. In the preface to the paperback edition of his book The God Delusion, he explains that while he is passionate, he is not a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists will believe what they want despite the evidence. He rebukes a creationist with his statement: “Fundamentalists know what they believe and they know that nothing will change their minds. The quotation from Kurt Wise on page 323 says it all: ‘…if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.’ It is impossible to overstress the difference between such a passionate commitment to biblical fundamentals and the true scientist’s equally passionate commitment to evidence. The fundamentalist Kurt Wise proclaims that all the evidence in the universe would not change his mind. The true scientist, knows exactly what it would take to change his mind: Evidence.”[16] If a creationist says he would hold a theory no matter what the evidence says, he’s labeled a fundamentalist nut job. If an evolutionist says it, he’s still just a scientist committed to the evidence.

E.     Consider a statement made in the documentary at www.becominghuman.org in their related exhibition on “Evolution” under the “Lineages” heading. “Some critics of evolutionary theory claim that scientists disagree about the concept of evolution, but this is not the case. While they may disagree over the details of ways in which the process unfolds, scientists do not question the existence of evolution.” If we can’t figure out how the process unfolded, how can we be sure there was a process at all? Therein is the problem. Supposedly all the evidence demonstrates human evolution, but evolutionists can’t even agree on how to interpret those facts. The only thing they agree on is you simply cannot question the existence of evolution.

F.      At this point in the lesson, I could do what you have undoubtedly seen before.

1.       I could show you the “Piltdown Man,” discovered in 1912 and exposed as a hoax in 1953. For 41 years, science taught that a skull that was the composite of an orangutan jaw, chimpanzee teeth and the skull cap of a modern human aged by staining the bones with an iron solution and chromic acid represented the missing link to prehistoric man.

2.       I could show you the “Nebraska Man,” discovered in 1922. Actually a man wasn’t discovered, a tooth was. Its finder was originally certain it was a hominid tooth. However, by 1927, scientists realized it was the tooth of a pig.

3.       I could show you the scanty fossil combinations with which scientists have reconstructed skeletons and pictures of what these ancient creatures could have looked like. I could tell you about the KNM-ER 1470 skull that was reconstructed one way by Meave Leakey in 1972 and reconstructed a different way by Tim Bromage more recently.[17] The differing interpretations in both have caused a reanalysis of human evolution.

4.       I could talk to you about the Neanderthals, which most of us will remember from our own classroom experiences. Do you remember how in our school days the Neanderthals were supposedly evolutionary ancestors to Homo sapiens? Guess what, now they are recognized as nothing more than ancient Homo sapiens.[18]

5.       I could do all of this, but you would have the same problem with all of this I have. With just a little research, you discover different sides of these stories. In all of these cases people like you and me are left having to merely take someone’s word for it.

G.     Instead, what I am sharing with you is the real state of what scientists know about the evolution of man. The fact is they don’t know anything. They have hypothesized a lot. They have determined evolution must have taken place, but they don’t know how. They find evidence, but fit it into the model that most supports their pet theory. They do all of this with that dishonest bias we have already discussed, assuming that no matter what they find it cannot possibly be a connection to God. They already “know” evolution happened and refuse to question it, so it must fit into that model. I want to do this by sharing with you some quotes from evolutionists themselves.

1.       “Hence, the details of hominid origins remain unknown and the subject of lively debate and substantial speculation.”[19]

2.       “In the absence of fossil record, structural and other adaptations have been projected back as an ancestral condition from living descendant species; but this is a very risky procedure...”[20]

3.       “The recognition and suitable definition of the genus Homo and its initial representatives has been a persistently troublesome problem. There have been no formal diagnoses, and the few characterizations offered suffer from both lack of definitive character states and inclusiveness.”[21]

4.       “Many hominid species once existed. But, today, only one remains- us. How did this happen? Again, it depends on whom you ask. Tim White, Ian Tattersall, and Meave Leakey’s phylogenies, or family trees, all differ, even though their interpretations are based on the same measurements, using the same equipment, the same units, and the same well-aged fossils. These phylogenies are working hypotheses, designed to be tested and scrutinized, while flexible enough to be changed when new evidence is found. For students, the lesson from these family trees should not be the lines themselves, but why scientists draw the relationships they do, and why they disagree.”[22] Did you catch that last sentence? Don’t worry that these scientists are always telling you they know the facts but at the same time can’t agree on what the facts are? Just hone in on the fact that they all draw evolutionary relationships and try to understand why each one does that. I know why they draw the relationships. They can’t possibly admit God had anything to do with our origins therefore they have to develop some kind of relationship they can’t prove between different kinds. I also know why they disagree. Because the evidence doesn’t prove anything about the relationships between the various fossils. All these scientists have is a bunch of fossils that they don’t really know what to do with other than make them fit on some kind of evolutionary ladder.

5.       “But, textbooks do not communicate the excitement and debate generated by new discoveries. The typical, linear representations of our evolutionary history are not only incorrect, they are boring. Using the model we propose, students have an opportunity to explore a science with more questions than answers, without having to memorize oversimplified versions of human ancestry.”[23] I love this one. Do you see what it says? All those oversimplified linear representations of evolutionary history in common textbooks are incorrect. Do you wonder why the typical textbook doesn’t communicate the debate generated by new discoveries? The real students of evolution know there are more questions than answers regarding evolution. Of course, they know the answer to one question. It all occurred by evolution.

6.       Consider the charts at the end of this outline. Three different scientists with three different interpretations of the facts. On the webpage where these charts are found the following statement is made: “Although there are thousands of fossils of human ancestors, the exact relationship between each of these specimens has yet to be determined. Scientists present competing hypotheses and test which may be correct. Here, we present three current, equally valid hypotheses of the hominid family tree.”[24] How can three mutually exclusive interpretations of the evidence be valid? But notice the strange admission. The scientists who have “proven” evolution actually admit they don’t know the relationship between the fossils. For all they know, they are variants of the same species or all completely different animals or some combination of those two.

Ian Tattersall’s Interpretation

Tim White’s Interpretation

Meave Leakey’s Interpretation

7.       DeSilva wrote the following as a summary about the charts at the end of this outline. “Recognizing the uncertainly [sic] of their interpretation, both Ian Tattersall and Tim White use dotted lines, instead of solid lines, in their family trees. Meave Leakey takes this caution a step further, and does not even use lines. She draws circles around related species. ‘The species enclosed in the ellipses are those that share features that appear to link them. I do suggest relationships, but I do not give such detailed relationships as those who draw lines because I believe the lines imply that we know more about how things are related than we actually do.’ She continues, ‘We will never know exactly how any species relates to another unless, by some amazing good fortune, we are ever able to extract DNA from these fossils.’”[25] They all know their interpretations are uncertain. Leakey seems the most honest when she says drawing any lines implies what we don’t know. In fact, we will never know.

H.     What does all of this tell us? Have scientists discovered for a fact a progression of species leading up to modern creatures including humans? Absolutely not. All they have found is a bunch of fossils that they link together somehow. They all know their theories are uncertain. They all know they really can’t tell how these “species” are linked together. The only thing they do know is that they have decided evolution must have taken place. It really doesn’t matter to them how you interpret the evidence as long as you never question evolution.

I.         What does the Bible say? In Genesis 2:7, the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground. In Genesis 2:19, the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky. Nothing in the evidence has been found to deny this. Nothing has been found, that is, unless you start with the assumption that God is non-existent or uninvolved and couldn’t possibly have done what the Bible claims.

IV.    Facts vs. Story

A.      Allow me to share an illustration to help understand what is going on here. It seems a little off topic, but when we are done, I believe you will see the connection.

1.       In Genesis 37:31-33, Joseph’s brothers brought his blood covered robe to Jacob and asked, “Is this your son’s robe?” Jacob said, “It is my son’s tunic. A wild beast has devoured him; Joseph has surely been torn to pieces!”

2.       Understand the difference between facts and story. What were the facts in this case? The facts were only two. 1) This tunic was Joseph’s. 2) The tunic had blood on it. That is it. Seeing these two facts, Jacob told himself a story. The story said Joseph was eaten by a wild beast. Jacob believed this story so much that years later when his other sons told them they had met Joseph in Egypt, he initially refused to believe (Genesis 45:26). Jacob’s story was logical. It was certainly possible, maybe even probable in the face of the evidence. I think most people seeing the evidence presented to Jacob would come to his same conclusion. The only problem with Joseph’s story was that it just wasn’t right.

3.       We know the right story. Joseph’s brothers captured him, sold him into slavery and dipped his tunic into goat’s blood. There were facts and there was story. We must never confuse the two. Facts are facts and story is story. Facts are what everyone can agree on and has to agree on because it is just the way it is. Story is what we make of the facts.

B.     Never lose sight of this illustration. That is exactly what is happening in the debate regarding evolution. We are told over and again that evolution is a fact. We are told it has been proven and must not be questioned. But that simply is not the case. Evolution is not a fact. Evolution is a story. By the same token, on a scientific level, Creation is not a fact either. It is also a story.

C.     What are the facts? The facts are we have found lots of bones and lots of fossils. The facts are the bones and fossils didn’t come labeled with names and relationships. The facts are we don’t know by observation how they are actually related and cannot know by observation. The facts are we have to make guesses on how they were related. When we start making those guesses, we are telling a story. Some tell that story and come up with billions of years of progressive change all starting with single celled organisms that progressively produced the diversity of species we see today. The Bible tells a different story. Both stories cannot be right. These stories are mutually exclusive. This modern nonsense of trying to mix them just doesn’t fly.

D.     Every once and a while you can even find an evolutionist who will admit this truth. Allow me to conclude with a few more quotes. These come from one of the prefaces to W.R. Bird’s The Origin of Species Revisited. Bird is a creationist and his book is a critique of evolutionary theory. However, this preface was written by Dr. Gareth J. Nelson, an evolutionist. I believe these statements are telling and demonstrate just what we have learned in this lesson.

1.       “All facts fit all theories. That is a fact of life. Facts fit some theories better than other theories, and that is another fact of life, one which enables science to progress, when a better theory is created by the human spirit.”[26] In other words, if we want it bad enough, we can make the facts fit any story we want.

2.       “…the book has virtue as criticism of evolutionary theory. It has virtue even though its criticism is loaded like the proverbial pair of dice. Indeed, when Mr. Bird rolls for evolutionary theory, who would expect anything but snake eyes to come up? Still he rolls the dice with style. He rolls them over and over again with the same result…Mr. Bird is concerned with origins and the evidence relevant thereto. He is basically correct that evidence, or proof, of origins—of the universe, of life, of all of the major groups of life, of all of the minor groups of life, indeed all of the species—is weak or nonexistent when measured on an absolute scale, as it always was and will always be. He is correct also that what evidence there is, is sometimes, even often, exaggerated by evolutionists. Yes, they load their own dice, for they, too, are human. They, too, play to the gallery, to the jury, and to the judges. Were they entirely wise rather than adversarial they would never claim to have done the impossible: to have proved the correctness of their views by offering evidence of the origins of things.”[27]

Conclusion:

      You have to decide which story makes the most sense. I cannot do that for you. Look around you. Does the precision of our universe and everything within it tell of the handiwork of God or does it tell of a giant cosmic accident still in progress?

Charts copied from http://www.mos.org/evolution/overlays/
 

Glory to God in the church by Christ Jesus
Franklin Church of Christ