Reflections on Jonathan Sarfati’s Refuting Evolution 2

2003-04-26

Sarfati’s book speaks to PBS’s program on evolution and similar scientists and philosophers that agree with evolution. His argument is technical, but not as technical as Behe or Dembski and Kushiner.

Sarfati quotes the television program’s personalities and seems to answer all their arguments. His opening chapters seem to be the strongest. Christianity is proposed as a religion and not a science. Evolution is also considered science. Also, there is an argument that both religion and science can coexist, like that Catholic cardinal that both worships God and holds to evolutionary cosmology. None of these things are true. We cannot put God into a box and say what we want to be true is true. The church and the Christian school are guilty of allowing this thinking infiltrate Christian thought. These institutions are slowly destroying people’s faith.

One significant teaching that remains in my mind is this argument against evolution: how did life come from non-life? I recall that Sarfati brought this up a handful of times throughout his book. There is no good evidence out there to explain it.

A common argument that Sarfati addresses is the assumption that ‘natural selection is speciation’. However, the Biblical model of ‘kinds’ means that there is a larger group that makes up a group of species. Also, from the fall, to the flood, and the dispersion of animals there could be rapid speciation. If animals of the same kind are isolated from each other, the same gene types of the animal group will be the strongest. This makes sense considering that the world began to be populated by animals after the ark landed on Ararat. This reproductive isolation results in loss of genetic information. The scientist will not effectively explain this with the evolutionary model.

Evolution demands many transitional fossils, in which the evidence is scarce and debatable. One example is the archaeopteryx. This animal is not part reptile or dinosaur and bird, but is a bird. This is one of the examples that evolutionists try to use as one of these examples. Other supposed examples are too ‘young’ by their historical model to even be considered more evidence.

Another example of evolution argument, as I have written before, was that scientists are claiming that they are beginning to understand how life came from non-life. They argue how a sort of proto-amino acid could have been formed and somehow became a protein with the right reaction taking place. But there is no concrete evidence of this, nor could such an experiment take place. They are grasping at straws to pass off their theory as factual information.

Something that shows up in the text a lot are the answers that evolutionists always have. Whether it be irreducible complexity (both in Behe and in Sarfati), or ‘bad design’ and genetic mistakes that are supposed vestiges of evolution, there is an answer they have to shut out any creationist argument. The Christian needs to be very careful as to what they say because they are quick to answer. They have a set agenda, and they are sticking to it.

I found the appendices of the book also helpful. The ‘arguments Christians shouldn’t use’ section was particularly helpful, since I have used some of these arguments. The idea that there was no rain before the flood was a common thought that I always had.

I have used numerous things from this book and from Answers in Genesis so far. I have talked to some of my friends at my church about some of these things to reaffirm that evolution cannot be a part of their thinking. Things I have written above have been some of the biggest things that stick out in my mind from this book.

I think one of the great things about this book, as I had formerly said, is that it is technical enough to confront the evolutionist arguments, yet it is written enough for a layman to understand. The chapter on fossils and evolution, is a good example of this.