God in His Mighty Power Created No Possibility for Evolutionism (2) A Clear Understanding

What is science? In light of present day evolutionism, one finds the term difficult to define. Those who deny creation and stand for evolutionism do so in the name of science. The French zoologist Pierre Grasse said the following regarding the disorder of modern science in regard to evolution:

The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Dürer’s “Melancholia” [a famous copper engraving, RJK] is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecules leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.[1]

Before we go farther, we need to define some terms. First, evolution is descent with modification. Evolution is a very broad term that touches many ideas. We need to realize that evolution does occur on a small scale within populations. Micro evolution is what occurs when the flu virus changes constantly. There is therefore the need for a new flu vaccine every year. Macro evolution is what occurred after the flood. The created kinds of Genesis 8:19 spread over the earth after the flood and diversified into the amazing amounts of assortment of animals we see today. The term macro evolution is also used in a way that contradicts the biblical time frame and also the very heart of science, which is knowledge of our world gained through observation and experimentation. Macro evolution is applied by many to describe evolution over millions of years. This is basic particles to people evolution. This we deny on the basis of the biblical timeframe.

Second, evolutionism takes the broad term evolution and uses it to explain origins. Evolutionism is today’s main-stream evolution, also known as “Neo-Darwinism,” or “new” Darwinism. Evolutionism is what many people – including myself until I studied it more – are referring to when they use the term evolution. For the sake of clarity, we will distinguish between the two terms throughout the series. We will also use the terms “evolutionism” and “Neo-Darwinism” interchangeably.

Evolutionism is the bitter fruit of two interwoven presuppositions. They are the ideas of naturalism and uniformitarianism.

First, evolutionism stems from the philosophy of naturalism. Naturalism is the idea that all things are “tractable through the methods of the empirical sciences.”[2] That is, in order for something to be considered fact, it must be observed and/or experimented with. Naturalism maintains that this natural world is all there is, individuals do not have souls, and there is no afterlife. Nothing supernatural can exist. Naturalism goes even further and says “physical processes alone produce the illusion of design.[3]” Naturalists here are basically saying that we are being tricked into thinking God created and is sovereign over all.

Second, evolutionism assumes uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism is the assumption that all things today occur at the same rate they always have throughout the history of the universe. Uniformitarianism theorizes that all the laws of nature in place today are constant and have never changed. There was no disruption of these laws in the history of the universe. Uniformitarianism, like naturalism, denies the supernatural, that is, God’s hand in six-day creation, the flood, and the second coming of Christ and the final judgment that will ensue. Uniformitarianism contradicts biblical catastrophism. The Apostle Peter was prophetic when it comes to this issue and addresses it very specifically. The larger context of the passage needs must be examined in order to encompass the idea of God’s prevailing hand – disrupting the natural laws he established at Creation – in the flood and the final judgment.

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up (2 Peter 3:3–10).

Not only does uniformitarianism contradict the biblical record of creation and the flood, but also evolution’s own explanation of the origin of the universe in the big bang. We will examine this contradiction in a later article.

In the next article in this series, we will take a look at two possible worldviews and the middle ground one can stand on when talking origins.

[1] Grasse, Pierre. Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation. (New York: Academic Press, 1977), 104.

[2] Jacobs, Jon. “Naturalism.” In Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Article published August 26, 2002.

[3] Alex Rosenberg, “Why I Am a Naturalist,” The Stone (blog), New York Times, September 17, 2011,