The Bible asserts that God created mankind from the dust of the earth in a separate act of creation than that of the animals. The refutes the theory of evolution of mankind from a lower life form. Most evolutionists, on the other hand, insist that mankind did evolve in this manner and that God does not exist. This article will explain the rationale behind the existence of God based on the failure of evolutionary theory to produce any substantial evidence for its primary premise that mankind evolved from a lower life form. It will also offer DNA related argumentation that points to the more logical hypothesis of intelligent design of God as defined in the biblical text.

Macroevolution and the Bible

Contrary to some well-meaning creationists, there is no place for macroevolution of mankind within the biblical model. Groothuis agrees, arguing “Genesis 1-2 presents God investing in and directing the natural order, not merely letting it evolve on its own according to principles that can be explained without appeal to a designing intelligence.”[1] The two hypotheses are in direct contradiction to one another; both cannot be true. If evolution of mankind from lower life forms is fact then the Bible as an accurate account of creation that supports the existence of God must fall into the classification of mythology and must be accounted as foolishness. And if the account of creation in Genesis is not exact to the letter, then we must reason that a lot of other data in the Bible is false as well. The entire body of Scripture treats the subject of Adam as if he were a real individual and the father of all mortal beings; if he is not, the whole concept of original sin and salvation as presented by the sacred writers is absurd. In addition, if we evolved from animals, then what is there to distinguish us from them in a divine plan consisting of sin and judgment? Do we possess the same spirit as a frog? Are we guilty of sins while the monkey is not? Does the wolf or shark that kills a man receive everlasting damnation on judgment day? There is little need for further argument in this area, for the difficulty of holding to both beliefs is quite apparent when reason and logic is applied.

Nevertheless, the theory of the evolution of all life from one common source is baseless without the proof that large biological life forms undergo real speciation within the process known as macroevolution. Since there is often a confusion of terms between scientists and creationists, the type of macroevolution or speciation we are discussing here is when one biological species evolves into another biological species that can reproduce fertile offspring while no longer able to biologically produce offspring with the species from which it originated. This inability to procreate with the original species must be genetic, not based on changes in size, instinct, location or other non-biological factors.

It is also important to recognize that even if some form of true speciation is shown to take place at the bacterial level or in plants, this does not necessitate that it takes place in animals. Nevertheless, even proving macroevolution of large biological life forms is not enough to validate the theory of the evolution of mankind. Let me explain. Even if macroevolution can take place among large biological life forms, this would not demand that all life sprung from one common ancestor. The Bible describes how God created the different types of animals, but we must not be foolish enough to mean that this meant every variety within a species. There were most certainly archetypes, including man, from which all the variations of a species sprang. It may be possible that macroevolution can take place within the original archetype family as an archetype evolves and changes over the millenniums. But man will always be man and there is absolutely no genuine evidence that mankind has ever experienced any type of true macroevolution. Groothuis notes how God’s creation of man as defined in the biblical text as distinct from that of the animals, even to the point where we are created in the very image of God.[2]

The main problem with the theory of evolution is not the basic premise of macroevolution, but the claim that all life evolved from one common ancestor and that mankind evolved from a lower life species. It is important for the reader to really understand that even if the macroevolution process of speciation were true it would not destroy the credibility of the Bible since it does not in itself disprove any of the biblical claims. Even if it could be shown that mankind divided into separate species in the past or if it were to happen in the future, this would still not refute the biblical account. The real dilemma of the whole theory of evolution is to prove that mankind came from a lower life form that lacked the ability to reason and comprehend God, something science has simply failed to accomplish despite its sometimes-ridiculous assertion that it has.

The Missing Link in Mankind’s Evolution

The problem for science in its theory of evolution is that they still have not really found a valid species that can be identified as a link between mankind and lower life forms, though they groundlessly claim to have discovered many transitional specimens related to various stages of mankind’s evolution in the fossil record. However, these claims are ridiculous distortions of reality.

Most people have very little insight on exactly how far science will stretch the truth to facilitate their myth of mankind’s macroevolution. The discovery of the supposed 3.5′ tall adult ancestor Lucy in Ethiopia during 1974 as one of science’s supposed greatest finds is just such an example. Even though this was supposedly the oldest and most complete early human skeleton at the time, it was only 40% complete and missing a skull.[3] Oh, and the crucial knee in this skeleton was found approximately a year earlier at a location approximately 1.5 miles away and 200 feet deeper than the rest of the skeleton. Though they were at first unable to locate any additional supporting evidence in the region for this species they have termed Australopithecus afarensis, they discovered sculls and other remains in some other locales beginning in 1992 to complete their new species.[4] Surprise! Surprise! They now created a missing link based on a lone incomplete partial skeleton, a kneecap deceptively presented as part of the skeleton, and skulls that were recovered in other locations.

Then in 1999, an even greater find according to scientists was also found in Ethiopia and called “Lucy’s baby.” This fossil find was also incomplete, but did include a skull (with milk teeth), a complete torso (with two shoulder blades), tiny fingers, a foot and a kneecap (“no bigger than a dried pea”).[5] They identified this as a baby of their Australopithecus afarensis species. Yet, in this case, there is no real evidence that this is anything more than a non-human primate, including that most of its parts are identical to that of an ape or a monkey. And the reality is that the overall impact of this discovery showed that the Australopithecus afarensis species possessed many more features of a non-human primate than evolutionists had believed beforehand, further distinguishing the differences between this species and mankind rather than bridging the gap.

There are even some evolutionists and paleoanthropologists that view the fossil evidence that has been touted as proof of a missing link with skepticism. As the prominent evolutionist Henry Gee admits:

When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor.[6]

Yet, even Gee seems to have later succumbed to the emotional hype and longing for proof to support the evolutionary theory of mankind from another direction. After the discovery of “The Hobbit” fossilized remains on an island in Indonesian, many believed it was a new dwarfed human species named Homo floresiensis, with Gee declaring:

Here we have a creature that is substantially different from modern humans, a totally new species of our genus, that lived almost into historical times. This has a number of startling implications. … It is the foundation of our religion, our ethics and even our science that humanity has been isolated, is a single species, and has been for a very long time. This find challenges that.[7]

It wasn’t long before many prominent members of the scientific community, including scientific groups, concluded that this was nothing more than a human pygmy of our own species suffering from the neurodevelopment disorder microcephaly. Nevertheless, other evolutionists refuse to accept this and are still arguing today that “The Hobbit” and his companions are a new human species.” Further hypotheses have been argued as well by prominent scientists, including claims that this “Hobbit” community consisted of our own human species suffering from some other ailment like Laron syndrome or Endemic cretinism.

The new species debate for Homo floresiensis is still a heated argument in the scientific circles and given the strong need and desire for evolutionists to prove their theory, the numerous rejections among their peers suggest that this issue is far from resolved even among themselves. There is so much confusion that Peter Brown, the palaeoanthropologist who originally named the species, has now changed his position by entertaining the possibility that it may be a new or different genus altogether.[8] It is also important to keep in mind that in order to be a true unique speciation differing from modern humans, scientists must show that a union between the two could not reproduce fertile offspring. And even if they could prove this, it still does not refute the possibility that they did not derive from the Adam and Eve archetypes created by God. There is no biblical problem with different species of humans as long as they are still human. Though extraction of the DNA in this find would clear up many of the scientific disputes, attempts at extraction thus far have been unsuccessful.

Any honest and unbiased evaluation of the theory of the macroevolution of mankind from a lower life form is pure speculation at best with a fossil record lacking the missing link evidence that would be necessary if such a claim were true. The truth is that science has never uncovered a genuine missing link of another species (as defined in this blog) that can be proven as our direct ancestor from which modern mankind sprang since it simply does not exist. At best, they must slap together fossilized remains found here and there in a desperate attempt to find validity of their illusion, even if they are found miles away from each other. The scientific history of trying to produce a true missing link for mankind is full of fraud, mistakes, emotional bias, and outright foolishness.[9] History has shown that those discovering these fossil remains often do not give the public all the facts and are inclined to piece together skeleton monstrosities at their whim such as in the case of Lucy. To date, there is no real evidence in the fossil record of a genuine missing link to support the macroevolution of man.[10]

Because such a missing link has not been found when logical deduction must honestly question why not, the most reasonable answer is that no such species ever existed. Though this does not in my opinion absolutely prove the creation of God, it does at least suggest intelligent design as the most probable explanation and leans strongly toward the evidence that God exists.

Taking a Closer Look at DNA

The Bible insists that all humans on the face of the earth today have descended from Eve (Genesis 3:20). Even science has been forced to admit due to DNA evidence that all of mankind in existence today came from one woman whom they term Mitochondrial Eve.[11]

In addition, another strong relevant argument supporting the biblical account of man’s creation rather than through science’s theory of evolution is the fact that DNA contains coded information that produces protein molecules that we can’t live without. This information is stored in the form of a four-character digital code containing the detailed instructions for assembling proteins, with the cell’s critical functions usually performed by these proteins. Science again fails by the inability to explain by any convincing naturalistic argument where this genetic information that is necessary for life to begin in the earliest cells came from. However, the biblical account again provides a reasonable answer by inferring that this information came from God.[12]

Final Thoughts

Based on the scientific evidence thus far, the biblical text of the creation provides a reasonable account of the creation of mankind that has not been successfully invalidated by science. In fact, it seems instead to be supported by the lack of archeological evidence. I myself think it is more reasonable to accept the biblical record as the most substantial explanation of how we came into being. Once we admit that this is the most logical alternative, we then must come to realize that the God denied by much of science does in fact exist.


[1] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 271.

[2] Ibid.

[3] John Roach, “Fossil Find is Missing Link in Human Evolution, Scientists Say,” National Geographic News, April 13, 2006.

[4] Ibid.

[5] James Owen. “‘Lucy’s Baby’ — World’s Oldest Child — Found by Fossil Hunters,” National Geographic News, September 20, 2006.

[6] Henry Gee, “Return to the planet of the apes,” Nature, 412:131–32, July 12, 2001.

[7] Tim Radford, “From 18,000 Years Ago, the One Metre-Tall Human That Challenges History of Evolution,” The Guardian (UK), October 28, 2004.

[8] Janet Jones, “Researchers to Drill for Hobbit History,” Nature, January 5, 2011.

[9] Strobel, The Case for a Creator (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 69-78.

[10] Groothuis, Apologetics, 291-92.

[11] Rice University, “‘Mitochondrial Eve’: Mother of All Humans Lived 200,000 Years Ago,” ScienceDaily, August 17, 2010. Though they have different opinions on the significance of what this means, it supports the idea that every human came from one woman. In addition, it is important to note that a number of scientists now dispute the claim that Mitochondrial Eve is the mother of us all.

[12] Groothuis, Apologetics, 312-29; Strobel, Creator, 274-80.

© Robert Alan King at All rights reserved.