Jesus once asked, regarding John the Immerser: “What went ye out into the wilderness to behold? A reed shaken with the wind?” (Matthew 11:7). A reed “shaken with the wind” implies instability—a trait not characteristic of John.
But the metaphor reminds one of the instability that accompanies the theory of evolution. It truly is a reed shaken with the wind. Advocates of this ideology are constantly swaying to adjust the intricacies of the dogma they so cherish, as new evidence develops. Consider two recent examples.
For years evolutionists have been insisting that the universe is approximately twenty billion years old. Their estimates, of course, have been based upon methods that are buttressed with evolutionary assumptions. There is no legitimate means of calculating a date of that magnitude from any sort of credible scientific evidence. This age-guessing has been a “hunch”—more of a wish than anything else—pure and simple.
Now, once more, the numbers are being altered.
According to a recent article in the Washington Times (May 26, 1999), the scientists are radically revising their view of the age of the universe. The piece states:
Astronomers say the universe is about 12 billion years old, far younger than some earlier estimates that placed its creation as long as 20 billion years ago.
Supposedly, this new estimate comes as a result of data received via studies done with the Hubble space telescope. This new figure for the age of the universe, by the way, is based upon the same sort of assumptions that have characterized previous studies.
But think about this. This new figure cuts the age of the universe almost in half. Does that not suggest how very speculative this methodology is? What would one be forced to think, if he stepped upon a weight scale to determine his weight, if he first weighed two hundred pounds, then, mounted the scale again, only to discover he weighed only one hundred pounds. The most reasonable conclusion would be this: something is wrong with this scale! And something is wrong with the evolutionary “scale,” or “clock.”
Evolutionists need vast quantities of time in which to spin the yarn that the entire creation is the result of gradual, uniform forces. But the time is not there—neither in science, and certainly not according to biblical chronology. (See our book, Creation, Evolution, and the Age of the Earth_. See also *"The Age of the Earth":/articles/read/the_age_of_theearth*.)
But the “reed” blows in another direction as well.
For more than a decade, evolutionary anthropologists have been contending that the first, true “humans” originated in Africa, some two million years ago. Supposedly, support for that notion emerged in 1987 when biologists announced that a “genetic” genealogy of sorts could be traced to a lady (whimsically named “Eve”) who lived in Africa two hundred thousand years ago. Now, some evolutionary advocates are seriously disputing this hypothesis.
In the August issue of Scientific American, there is an article titled, “Is Out of Africa Going Out The Door?” The subtitle is “New doubts on a popular theory of human origins.” The author, Kate Wong, suggests that new evidence “from Portugal and Australia appear to fit much more neatly” with the idea that human beings evolved in various regions of the earth.
In a letter to this author, accompanied by the aforementioned article from Scientific American, Dr. Benjamin Wilson, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Biochemistry School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, commented:
These evolutionists can, by speculation on their discoveries, reach extensive conclusions. Their zeal and dedication remind me of earlier Chinese scientists who always began their published articles with: “In accordance with the thoughts of Chairman Mao Tse Chung—we investigated the following.”
Well, here we have it. The evolutionists admit they’re unsure of the “time” factor, and now the “place” factor.
But there’s another problem: they don’t know the “how” factor either. And that pretty much settles it, doesn’t it?
The biblical record of earth and man’s genesis is much more credible than the vacillating, “blown-with-the-wind” theories of modern scientism.