Being such an ambiguous term, one which no two Evolutionists I have ever met seem to agree on, the term "Evolution" can mean whatever an Evolutionist wants it to mean at the time. As a Biblical Creationist, I already believe in natural selection (represented by the dogs in the picture). As a matter of fact, Charles Darwin took the idea of natural selection from another Biblical Creationist, Edward Blyth, who came up with the theory a full 25 years before Darwin published his book "on the origin of species" (and we'll look more at this book in a moment). So not only do Biblical Creationists usually believe in natural selection (I have yet to find one that doesn't), it's actually our side that came up with it in the first place!

 

But let's come back to Darwin's book. What is Evolution really about? Let's have a look at the full title of Darwin's "Origin of species". It is: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

 

Now, we'll ignore the bit about the "preservation of favored races" bit. We're only interested in the bit before the colon. Before I continue, I'd like you to read the title of the book again (closely) and see if you can figure out what I am about to say.

 

The title of the book has four key words. Origin, species, and "by means". Evolution is not, itself, natural selection. Evolution is actually about the origins of different species (another ambiguous term, which can mean anything as simple as a bird "evolving" into a different bird, or something as insane as an ape like creature evolving into humans) by means of natural selection. It is not about how different kinds of animals adapt when they already exist (unless this definition suits the Evolutionist using it).

 

So the term "Evolution" is not sysnonymous with natural selection. The mythical process of Evolution only uses natural selection. Therefore, providing evidence of Natural Selection is not enough to provide evidence for Evolution. And that brings us on to the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

 

Affirming the consequent

 

Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy in which the presence of the expected result is used to prove the presence of a particular cause. It is generally structured as:

 

Premise 1: If X was true, we would expect to find Y.

Premise 2: We find Y.

Conclusion: Therefore X is true.

 

As an example, we could say:

 

Premise 1: If it had just been raining, my car would be wet.

Premise 2: My car is wet.

Conclusion: Therefore, it has just been raining.

 

There are countless ways in which a car can get wet aside from being rained on, not least of which would be if I had just washed it. Someone could have attempted to vandalise it by throwing muddy water over the top, or maybe some children were having a water fight and they accidentally hit it with a water baloon. It is therefore fallacious to say that the car is wet, therefore it has been raining.

 

A very large amount of Evolutionist arguments depend entirely on this fallacy. Returning to the point beforehand, the argument would be stated like this:

 

Premise 1: If Evolution was true, we'd expect to see natural selection happening.

Premise 2: We see natural selection happening.

Conclusion: Therefore Evolution must be true.

 

Just as there are multiple explainations for my car being wet, there is an alternative reason natural selection could exist that does not involve Evolution.

 

To a Biblical Creationist, the answer is really quite simple: It is one of the many great and wonderful processes the Lord designed both to leave human beings in awe of him and to keep the vast majority of animals (and, more importantly, human beings) alive in a world that would be drastically changed, not only by a giant flood and some terrible climate changes, but also by man himself.

 

God, being the glorious being he is, often likes to show off. Not only did he create the world in an orderly fashion, he gave us dominion over it. It is this very premise that modern science was founded on. An orderly God would create an orderly world. Therefore if gravity holds us on the Earth one day, we will expect it to hold us on the Earth the next, just as an example. He also gave us the right to study this world (with some ethical guidelines, of course). It's not just "God did it", as some people claim, it's "yes, God did it, but how does he do it?" Yes, God forms clouds, but how does God form clouds? By studying science, human beings are left in absolute awe of God, just as we have been from the very beginning.

 

Natural selection is just one more example. It's not evidence of a random accident that leaves this world as a quasi-convenient result of a giant cosmic explosion that, for some magical reason created order rather than disorder, as all other explosions do. It is evidence of a wonderful designer who not only creates animals but designed a mechanism within them that allows them to adapt to an ever changing world aswell.

 

In his wonderful knowledge, God knew that his once beautiful planet would be tainted with sin. He knew it would change often, and that eventually he'd change it entirely by sending a gigantic flood, which would change the world forever. He also knew that, once they had left the ark, these creatures would disperse all over the world (as he commanded them), and settle in many different environments, where they would proceed to execute his command to fill the Earth. They would need at least some limited ability to adapt, otherwise they would fall apart and go extinct, as many of them have (presumably to show that us that this is precisely why natural selection happens). If natural selection did not happen, not one single species on the planet would have survived post-flood. So really, a creation devoid of natural selection would be a very bad design. It would be evidence against an omniscient God having any hand in this world, assuming, of course, we would even still be here to observe it.

 

So, does natural selection really prove Evolution? The obvious answer is no, it absolutely does not. It is easily explainable within a Christian worldview and the absence of it would actually be quite good evidence against the Bible. More to the point, a Christian discovered it in the first place! But that leaves Evolution with a problem. The vast majority of "proofs" of Evolution rely very heavily on this fallacy. If you remove the fallacies of equivocation and affirming the consequent, you remove a whopping great chunk of "proof" of Evolution.

 

By contrast, Christianity not only has science on our side (and no wonder, as its very existence is owed to Christianity in the first place), but we have a great amount more to back us up. Christianity is backed up by science, history, logic, archaeology, geography, prophecy, witness testimony and even the modern political state. In fact, it is very often those who dissent from Christianity who refute their own professed worldview. A Christian can simply sit back and let the critic practically admit "the next words out of my mouth will be a lie". Truly it is a great time to be a Christian.