Witnessing isn't just about sharing the gospel with unbelievers. Sometimes it involves sharing with, and encouraging, our brothers and sisters in Christ to strengthen and encourage their beliefs or to provide them with tools that they, in turn, can use to defend or share the gospel with others. Such an opportunity arose when I went to see the holiday re-creation of the birth of Christ, The Miracle of Christmas, at the Sight & Sound theaters in my hometown of Lancaster, PA.

As an aside, if you are not familiar with the Sight & Sound theaters, which produce Broadway-style and Broadway-quality adaptations of biblical stories, they are a wonderful encouragement and witnessing tool in themselves. The shows, which are originally written and include clear presentations of the gospel, are spectacular visual, historical, and musical events that you do not want to miss if you can possibly help it. If you are anywhere near Lancaster County — and even if you aren't — it's worth the trip.

I was at this year's Christmas show with my friend Molly, and as we waited for the curtain to rise, we browsed the gift shops and admired the glorious architecture and décor of the gigantic first century Jerusalem-style theater. After considering the elegantly framed promotional posters for the theater's production of Noah's Ark (which includes 300 live and animatronic animals on a wrap-around stage, by the way), we got onto a discussion about evolution, and Darwin's approach to evolution, in particular.

As an honor student in high school and a science major at a prestigious university, I had originally accepted evolution as scientific fact, even though it is still very much scientific theory (albeit the only theory other than creation that the scientific community has). Even after giving my life back to the Lord, I did not immediately consider the theological implications of this position, nor had it even crossed my mind that it would conflict with my Christian beliefs. Even further from my mind was the thought that perhaps the world's most renowned scientists would have doubts — serious doubts — about the viability of their own theory.

It didn't conflict with my beliefs because, at the time, I suppose I would have fit into the category called “theistic” evolutionists, or those who believe in the process of evolution as guided by God, not by naturalistic means. And it had simply never occurred to me that it might be wrong.

My Own Journey From Evolution

At a backyard barbecue one night, not too long after my return to the Lord, however, a friend of mine posed a few questions that got me thinking about the viability of evolution. The things he said disturbed me. In fact, they disturbed me enough to do some further investigation into the subject. As a former science major, this was an interesting challenge for me, and it did not take me long to become convinced that this theory is on shaky, if not impossible, scientific ground. Ironically, it wasn't theology that convinced me of evolution's error; it was the evidence.

I discovered that, even among the world's most eminent evolutionists, preference supports evolution, but the facts from paleontology, genetics, mathematics, cytology (study of cells), biology, and other disciplines do not. In fact, all of the evidence points to the fact that species, without transitional forms, appeared in the fossil record quickly and wholly formed. During the Cambrian Explosion of about 600 million years ago, for example, all of the known animal phyla abruptly showed up in the fossil record with no trace of evolutionary ancestors whatsoever. Evolutionary biologists believe that all of these phyla evolved over a brief period of about 100 million years. Even if — and this is a big “if” — the process of genetic mutation could create beneficial change in amounts significant enough to result in new species, which geneticists argue it cannot (there are immutable, fixed boundaries that most species cannot cross), there simply isn't time, even by the most generous calculations, for Darwinian evolution to have occurred.

Indeed, the fossil record is a consistent stumbling block for evolutionists. When Darwin hypothesized his “evolution by natural selection,” there was very little in the fossil record to go on. He admitted that his theory largely rested on the assumption that paleontologists would gradually uncover the fossils of billions of transitional species that would fill in the gaps of the fossil record. Unfortunately for Darwin's followers, paleontologists have found just the opposite. Not only does the fossil record show that the primary characteristic of animal and plant species is stasis, or lack of significant evolutionary change; but when new species appear, it is all at once. This is why the earliest critics of evolution were not Christians. They were paleontologists, who immediately recognized that the concept of gradual evolution of species over time was in complete conflict with the fossil record. Since the turn of the century, the situation has only worsened for evolutionists. Even the handful of species once thought to be transitional life forms, like the famous half-bird/half-reptile the Archaeopteryx, have been subsequently found to be wholly formed species of one or the other. Archaeopteryx was disqualified as a transitional fossil, not only when it was proven to be a fully functioning reptile, but also when a skeleton of a fully formed bird was found to have lived at the same time.

Moreover, the Darwinian process of natural selection cannot explain the diversity in life — diversity that often includes negative traits that, according to Darwinian processes, never should have developed. For example, the bee's stinger, which becomes lodged in the victim's skin and rips from the bee's abdomen by the roots, usually resulting in death of the bee; the scent glands of deer that, while alerting them to one another, also alert them to their predators; and the bulky tail of the peacock, which is often a fatal encumbrance when running for its life. Darwinian evolutionists have no answer for these problems, and they are most often ignored.

The problems are greatest in botany. Botanist J.C. Willis has pointed out that one plant species generally differs from another in the smallest of details, such as the shape of the leaves or the arrangement of the leaves on the stem. How could such features have any effect on the plant's ability to survive? And what about the mathematical precision of the placement of botanical features such as leaves and nodes? How could such precise placement have any effect on survival? Wouldn't “close enough” do? He also points out that, due to cross-pollination with the “parent,” the process of natural selection could never have had significant impact in plant species because any genetic mutations would be wiped out in the cross-pollination process.

A Powerless Process

Darwinian evolution is also completely powerless to explain complex organs, such as the eye. Remove one component eye and the eye ceases to function. How could such a complex system develop by a series of random mutations? Evolutionists have no answer. The best they can do is place various types of eyes — from snails to human beings — in succession of simplest to most complex. But succession is not the same as evolution. There is no relationship between these various types of eyes, just as there is no relationship between a pair of scissors and an ax, even though they are implements for cutting. Each type of eye meets a unique seeing need and must have “evolved” uniquely. The same problem exists in reproductive systems, breathing systems, and myriad other biological systems. Not only is the ability of each to evolve highly improbable in itself, but this improbability must have happened billions of times, in millions of different species, in a time frame that is too small to make it likely to have happened even once. Not surprisingly, among the greatest critics of evolution are mathematicians.

The problem does not exist simply in highly developed organs. It exists at the cellular level, at something as simple as cilia, which are the tail-like features that whip, allowing cellular animals and others, such as sperm, to swim. Each of these microscopic structures is as complex as a modern factory, but more interdependent. Remove any one component and the entire system becomes useless. Imagine removing a screw from the handrail in the stairwell of an automobile factory and having all production — from the automobile assembly line to lunch in the cafeteria — screech to halt. Changing or removing even one molecule of a cilium would have the same impact on the cilium. Darwinian evolution simply cannot explain the development of a cilium, and if Darwinian evolution cannot explain the development of one of the smallest functioning systems in the animal and plant kingdoms, it cannot explain the development of an eye, or a frog, or a horse, or a human being.

I was stunned. The more I read, the more I saw Darwinian evolution as powerless to explain the observable evidence from every discipline, from paleontology to microbiology. And these problems were not cited by creation scientists, mind you, but from evolutionists, most of them unbelievers. Suddenly, it seemed more incredible to believe that the clumsy, random process of Darwinian evolution produced this glorious, complex array of nature than it did to believe that it was created by a transcendent, all-powerful God. As a lover of scientific study, the former “common sense” appeal that Darwinism held for me vanished. And, as a Christian, I had no need to justify evolutionary process as part of a naturalistic world view, so I abandoned it.

Still, the process was surreal for me. It was easier to give up evolution on scientific grounds than on emotional ones. It seemed too supernatural — too fantastic — to be true. But then, didn't I believe in the virgin birth? the resurrection of Christ? the creation of all matter, space, and time out of nothing at the Genesis event? I did, but I'd believed those things for as long as I could remember (living a lifestyle that reflected those beliefs was a different thing). This was a fundamental change for me.

Since that time, science of all kinds, including study of evolution, has become a pet subject of mine.

Come to My Bookshelf

As Molly and I stood discussing these subjects in the middle of the Millennium Theater, I noticed the lady standing behind the gift counter listening to our conversation with rapt attention. Finally, she couldn't stand it anymore, and she broke into the conversation with her own thoughts on the subject.

“I just can't believe they are teaching evolution in schools,” she said. “It's terrible!”

This was touching her personally, she said, because young woman she knew, of the impressionable age of 16, was starting to question her Christian faith based on what she was being taught of science in school. It just seemed that the Bible and science were in conflict, the young girl said, and if the Bible were wrong on the scientific issues, how could it be true on the spiritual ones? The lady bemoaned that it never occurred to this young girl that her teachers and her textbooks might be wrong. I told her that I've found that those who are most dogmatic about the inerrancy of Darwinism are those who know the least about it. Ironically, the more deeply involved in the study of evolution that scientists are, the more they are aware of its flaws.

I immediately thought of three books that would be excellent at addressing the issues faced by this young girl. They were: Creation and Evolution, by British scientist Dr. Alan Hayward; Darwin on Trial by the highly respected lawyer and legal writer Philip Johnson; and Darwin's Black Box, by biochemist Michael Behe. All of the examples given in this column were taken from one of these three books.

Creation and Evolution is an extremely readable book, written from a Christian perspective, for readers of all levels, that relies entirely on the arguments, frustrations, and admissions of evolutionists. It is an excellent overview of the issues without overwhelming readers with too much information. Because its criticisms come from the evolutionists themselves, however, its arguments are powerful.

In Darwin on Trial, lawyer and legal author Philip Johnson “tries” Darwin's theory based on the evidence alone. This isn't armchair reading, but it's worth the effort. It is a more technical, although readable, book that takes a look at the full range of evidence in detail. Like Hayward, Johnson uses as evidence the writings and comments of the evolutionists themselves; then, in some cases, analyzes these comments based on logic and the legal standards for burden of proof. This is an excellent book for theistic evolutionists who have not considered the theological implications of the evolutionary theory.

Darwin's Black Box looks at evolution from a cellular-molecular level. It is based on the idea that some of life's most critical structures are “reductionist systems,” which are like mousetraps — remove one component and they become useless. Behe simply shatters the idea that the Darwinian evolutionary model could evolve such systems. This book is more technical, but the author makes the effort to constrain the technical discussions in well-marked sections that readers can skip if they choose.

Providentially Placed

As I shared my thoughts with the lady behind the gift counter, she grew increasingly excited. “These are exactly the kinds of books I was looking for,” she said. “I just didn't know how to find them, or which one to buy.” She then asked me to pick one that might be the most appropriate for her friend. Based on what the lady had told me, I selected Darwin on Trial and wrote down the name and author on a slip of paper, along with the others. She was almost giddy. She couldn't wait to purchase a copy and give it to the girl for Christmas. I was certain that her efforts would be fruitful, because there was no question in my mind that God had put us there, at that time, for just that purpose.

As we headed into the show, I was amazed at how so much had come out of a little chit-chat between friends. I know there are many Christians who are hesitant about sharing their faith, even with one another, in public places. But I have found that the more I discuss spiritual issues openly with fellow Christians, (or even with nonChristians), in all manner of places and time, God uses those discussions to reach people I never could have imagined. Who would have thought that I'd end up sharing information about the flaws of Darwinism to meet the spiritual needs of a 16-year old I will probably never meet? But God knew, and our openness allowed Him to open a door to potentially change a life forever.

Looking for resources to help you defend your faith? Check out our recommended reading list!