Summary: The biblical account of creation is more viable than the theory of evolution.
SERIES: “ANSWERS FOR SOME OF LIFE’S DIFFICULT QUESTIONS”
TEXT: GENESIS 1:1
TITLE: “IS EVOLUTION MORE CREDIBLE THAN CREATION?”
INTRODUCTION: A. A number of years ago, Ronald Keith Williamson was convicted of the brutal
murder of Debra Sue Carter in Oklahoma. Williamson had vigorously denied
strangling Carter and even after his conviction, he continued to strongly proclaim his
The main evidence used to convict Williamson was testimony from an expert that
had analyzed four hairs that came from the victim’s body and from other places at the
crime scene. The expert testified that the hairs were a “match” with samples from
Williamson’s hair. He spent twelve years in prison – nine of them awaiting execution.
There was one big problem – Williamson was innocent. DNA analysis found at
the crime scene established that someone else had committed the murder.
So what about the evidence that had convicted Williamson? Well, the hair from
the scene hadn’t really matched Williamson’s hair. The hair was only consistent in
some of the same properties. Their color, shape, and texture were similar.
Some legal analysts have called hair analysis “pseudo-science.” Jurors hear
impressive-sounding testimony about what appears to be scientifically valid proof and
erroneously believe that it establishes the defendant’s guilt. Paired with over-zealous
prosecutors who mischaracterize or overstate the value of hair analysis, the evidence
seems to be overwhelmingly in favor of guilty.
A federal appeals judge called the hair evidence in Williamson’s case
“scientifically unreliable.” Hair evidence has been used against eighteen death row
prisoners over the last twenty-five years and all were subsequently declared innocent.
1. Even though evolution has some pretty vigorous proponents, everything is not as it
2. The evidence and testimony may seem overwhelming but like the murder case just
mentioned, there are a lot of holes if you know where to look.
-- Michael Denton, molecular biologist: “[Evolutionary theory] is still, as it was in
Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual
support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive
advocates would have us believe.”
B. Maybe you’ve heard about the gorilla in a zoo holding a Bible in one hand and
Darwin’s Origin of Species in the other. He looked confused, so someone asked,
“What are you doing?” The gorilla answered, “Well, I’m trying to decide if I’m my
brother’s keeper or my keeper’s brother.”
1. The debate between the theory of evolution and the biblical teaching of creation can
seem quite confusing.
2. We’re bombarded daily with the philosophy that evolution is the only credible
explanation for the existence of the universe and the life forms in it.
3. Howard Hendricks: “In the midst of a generation screaming for answers, Christians
--On this particular topic, we shouldn’t stutter. We should be crystal clear about
what we believe to the point where we can share it with others.
4. This morning, I want us to look closely into the question at hand and see if we can’t
clarify the basic issues, revive our faith in the biblical explanation, and fortify
ourselves to give a clear answer to those who doubt our stance.
I. EXAMINING EVOLUTION
A. Evolution has been, and in some circles still is, the most prominently taught explanation for the universe
as it exists.
1. Lee Strobel: “In the popular culture, the case for evolution is generally considered shut.”
2. Time magazine in a recap of the second millenium in their Dec. 31, 1999 issue under the heading
“Iconoclast of the Century: Charles Darwin (1809-1882): “Darwinism remains one of the most
successful scientific theories ever promulgated.”
3. Darwinism is taught in schools not as a theory but as fact.
--It’s reinforced in museums, zoos, and even in children’s cartoons.
4. Bob Russel: “Evolution has been repeated so often that to challenge it is the equivalent to believing in
a flat earth or a moon made of cheese.”
B. Evolution actually has two sub-divisions: micro-evolution and macro-evolution
1. “Micro-evolution” is true to many extents.
--There are undeniably variations within the specific species of animals and plants.
a. For instance: there are more than 200 breeds of dogs.
b. Dairy cattle can be bred for improved milk production.
c. Bacteria can adapt and develop immunity to antibiotics.
d. Micro-evolution consists of changes within the specific species
2. “Macro-evolution” is what Darwinists propound.
a. They claim that life began millions of years ago with simple single-cell creatures brewed in a gooey
soup and then developed through mutation and natural selection into the vast array of plant and
animal life that populate the planet.
b. Someone has facetiously referred to this process as: “From goo to you by way of the zoo”
C. Darwinists have trouble explaining several things:
1. The lack of fossil evidence for the transitions between various species of animals.