X-Men And The Theory Of Evolution

C H U R C H   R E F O R M   S E R I E S

By Biblicism Institute

“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” – Charles Darwin (1872)

Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was a misguided effort by a curious mind that has been kept relevant mostly by those who wish to believe that there is no God. That way they can go on living in sin and evade all accountability to their Maker. After all, if they are descended from animals, they can go on acting like them.

Evolution as Imagined by Daniel Lee

Without delving into the nitty-gritty of the “theory” itself – which necessitates more faith to accept than to believe that God created everything – we will first tackle one irrefutable fact prevalent in all living things.

Entropy.

Here’s how Webster Dictionary defines Entropy: a process of degradation or running down. Entropy has other meanings in thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and other fields – meanings we are not using here.

Every living organism – including humans – is in a constant state of degradation or deterioration, not evolution. From the moment something comes to be, it already is dying, and will eventually die.

X-Men: Wolverine

The entire living organic system is in a constant fight for survival. Unfortunately, there is nothing in its intrinsic composition powerful enough that would enable it to suppress the inevitable and fateful pull toward its own dissolution or death.

Otherwise, it would divert all of its energy into overcoming said fate by “evolving” out of it, exactly like X-Men’s Wolverine manages to do. Why? Because the survival instinct is the most dominant one. Said evolving characteristic – if it were possible – would in turn be uniformly present in all of creation, and entropy would be nothing but a bad memory.

On the surface, X-Men may appear to favor the theory of evolution, but once pertinent questions are asked, that whole facade crumbles like a butterless cookie, leaving but a handful of apologetics that work in favor of creationism.

1) If, according to evolution, mankind is the end result of animals evolving into a better species – hence the word evolution which Webster defines as “a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state” – how come many of the X-Men, like Wolverine, devolve into beasts? Let’s face it, that’s a step back. It’s no longer evolution, but degradation or devolution.

But let’s just say that the X-Men are really in the process of being fully humans, then-

2) The creators of the series are absolutely right in parading these mutants amidst their fully human counterparts. It shows they have a good grasp of what true applied evolution would entail, in terms of evolutionary mutants abiding amongst fully developed humans (minus the fiction). Good story-telling always benefits from a strong dose of common sense, even when the characters are out of this world.

Said common sense when applied to our present reality – where the evolution theory has become the norm – helps raise the most obvious of questions: how come there are no evolutionary dumb-as-rock monkey/man mutants (more or less like Daniel Lee’s photos above and unlike the X-Men of course) running around for real? After all, nature’s revolving cycle never fails. Any farmer will attest to the fact that a fruit tree never produces just one harvest. So where are the subsequent generations of evolutionary mutants?

The proponents of the Evolution Religion would quickly interject that I. it would take millions of years for  evolution to succeed from its point of origin (i.e., from the primordial soup), and that II. evolution is undirected.

I. MILLIONS OF YEARS

Let’s humor them and run with the “theory” that it takes millions of years to actually have mutants running around today.

a) For the sake of argument, let’s get a starting point of say Year 1 Billion.

b) Given the cyclical law of nature, let’s say that the evolutionary leap – again for the sake of argument – starts at its point of origin once every year, instead of every hour or every day or every month, just to make it simple.

c) If every single year, following Year 1 Billion, a different additional leap had started at its point of origin, by the time we would have reached today some form of mutation should now be in progress, because life in its current state is supposedly the result of Year-1-Billion‘s first leap.

As a consequence of the consecutive and additional year-after-year leaps, we definitely should have some real life dumb-as-rock mutants running about acting all monkey-like. Most of these mutants would have already gone through the millions and millions of years needed to almost complete the process or at least a great part of it. Others would either be in their evolutionary infancy or adolescence. So where are they?

II. EVOLUTION IS UNDIRECTED, BUT EVERYTHING IN NATURE IS DIRECTED

According to evolution scientists, the reason there are no mutants around is because the evolutionary leap succeeded only once in bringing about a full cycle of mutation that led up to the appearance of modern humans.

X-Men: Beast

And because evolution is supposedly undirected and random, no one knows when it will whimsically happen again. Amazingly enough, that one-time undirected accident somehow directed itself into the greatest feat in all of nature: man, the most astounding biological and self-aware machine ever constructed. It’s a heck of an undirected direction, wouldn’t you say?

Anyway, if evolution is undirected and random, how did scientists figure out that it only succeeded once? They didn’t. They got caught in a quandary because of the cyclical law of nature. To free themselves from said dilemma, they decided that the evolution process that led up to man has gone down once. How? By theorizing that evolution is “undirected.” That’s all! Basically, they just pulled a rabbit out of a hat. If not, they would have had to account for the lack of mutants in our midst.

But whether they want to ignore it or not, the problem still persists.

If the evolutionary leap were real, it would not have bloomed just once. It would be churning incessantly, year after year, multi-linearly, and would not have been a one-time whimsical, linear, and undirected accident that resulted in our current state of affairs.

Whatever catapulted the first transformation process or evolutionary leap would have been and would still be in continuous operational mode, because everything in nature repeats itself like clockwork. Everything can be observed to possess the same cyclical and rotational function, and everything follows that same archetypal and directional order. In other words, it’s the cyclical law of nature.

A few examples:

i. the sun faithfully rises in the East, and never fails to set in the West – day in and day out;

ii. everything comes to be, lives, and dies – and the cycle faithfully begins again and again;

iii. seasonal changes faithfully occur year after year;

iv. earth faithfully rotates around the sun – again and again;

v. water cycle: ocean -> evaporation+condensation -> precipitation -> infiltration -> distribution -> ocean – and the cycle faithfully begins again and again.

So where is the continuous revolving cycle of evolution? Apparently it’s the only thing in nature that evaded one, pretty smart for an undirected process. It directed itself straight out of a cumbersome law. Such amazing, undirected direction is getting to be a habit.

In reality, the only reason it has no cycle is because evolution “scientists” arbitrarily decided it would be so. Since the cyclical law of nature doesn’t help their theory, it has become irrelevant. After all, evolution is their brainchild, and they control the fictional script.

Now we await their take on how “nature” managed to randomly create over 8 million animal species (not to mention the innumerable number of plant species); but something tells us they’re too cunning to mess with that.

They know they can’t scientifically present 8 million different paths of mutation, given that no one was around millions of years ago to witness the process when it supposedly started, and that no evidence of 8 million paths has been left behind.

Besides, trying to fictionalize 8 million ways the primordial soup has mutated – like they did with the supposed path that led up to man – would send them straight to M.A.D. (Mental Asylum for Dingbats).

CONCLUSION

God’s creation is not just a wonder to behold, it is a faithful revolving mechanism that we humans can bet the bank on. Its many fine-tuned complexities leave no room for accidental randomness, otherwise there would be chaos.

Imagine one morning we wake up and find out that the sun suddenly got tired of being too far away from the earth, and whimsically decided that it would confound us poor monkey-upgrades by speedily dashing closer to our planet just to make crispy critters out of us; or that the earth had randomly directed itself to rotate clockwise on its axis instead of counter-clockwise (as viewed from Polaris) just to create havoc. If nature worked randomly and undirected like that, we’d be in BIG trouble.

Nothing in God’s creation is fortuitous. Everything is by design. And everything has a direction. That’s what helps us sleep at ease.

“It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion science offers a surer path to God than religion,” explains Physicist Paul Davies, the winner of the 2001 Kelvin Medal issued by the Institute of Physics and the winner of the 2002 Faraday Prize issued by the Royal Society (amongst other awards).

“People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature – the laws of physics – are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company.

“However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”

Evolution on the other hand is nothing but a half-baked theory that can’t even make it gracefully within the limited confines of a comic book or a science fiction movie. We say it’s about time it meets its natural friend, entropy. Then there will be room for God-given logic, common sense, reason, and true science.

“Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good!” Genesis 1:31

Read Also: Puzzled Scientists

 Note in the Margin

To all the E-theorists who are commenting, please try your best to intelligently and by design – pun intended – pinpoint the flaws in the article, by providing counterpoints or proofs of actual monkey/man mutants running around, without resorting to vile and unbecoming profanities.

Usually people who resort to such a tactic have no argument, and in this instance we understand you don’t have any. Your inane invectives are really nudging us to believe that some of you are just emerging out of the monkey stage of evolution, while others are still in primordial slime mode. 🙂 We do realize that such a statement would be an insult to normal folks like us creationists, but to you E-theorists we have come to understand that it is not. Go figure.

Anyway, what on earth would possess a human being to believe he’s an animal? That’s beyond any sane comprehension. No wonder many of you E-theorists don’t get the fact that 1) we’re using X-Men as an analogy, utilizing specific and limited aspects of the movie; for example, if someone were to say, “My brother is as big as a ship,” thus limiting the analogy to “big,” then you would reply, “How come you say that, your brother doesn’t have engines or chimneys,” and 2) we’re making use of X-Men fiction to debunk Evolution fiction; unfortunately, it’s too subtle a sarcasm for you. After all, you’re “animals.” Sad indeed. 😦

Read also: Jesus was not a Jew

Read also: How Atheists Do God’s Will