WHY I REJECTED
Michael T.† Griffith
@All Rights Reserved
I used to be a devout theistic evolutionist.† I was absolutely convinced that evolution was
the mechanism God used to create life on earth.†
This is one reason I hesitate to question evolutionists' motives, since
I know that I genuinely believed evolution was factual and I saw no conflict
between it and my religious faith.
My first doubts about evolution came as I read the short
creationist book titled Fossils In Focus written by two creation scientists.† I had a friend at the time who was a
professor of biology at a local community college.† He agreed to read the book and said he was
certain he would find numerous errors in it.†
†When he gave me his critique of
the book, he didnít seem to have real answers for the objections raised in the
book.† Over and over again, his response
boiled down to an appeal to authority.† This
led me to read more creationist literature.†
Several books later, I came away highly skeptical of the theory of
evolution.† My doubts only increased as
the years went by and as I read more literature on the creation-evolution
debate.† It seemed to me--and still
does--that evolution is unable to answer the following questions (among others):
is the origin of life? At least theistic evolution has a plausible answer,
namely, that life came from an omnipotent eternal life.† Secular evolution can only posit life
from non-life and something from nothing.†
Evolutionary scientists still haven't even come close to producing
even the "simplest" living cell from non-living matter, despite
repeated attempts to do so in sophisticated laboratory experiments.
is the origin of intellect?
is the origin of consciousness?
could a lowly, single-cell animal have elevated itself into a higher life
could life have changed itself from cold-blooded to warm-blooded?
would the eye have evolved when so many of the components necessary for
vision are useless unless combined with other components to form an
incredibly complex machine? To this day I have yet to see a logical,
credible theory of how even a "primitive" eye could have
developed by random processes.
could sexless life, in the beginning, have created sex and why?
could a single cell have evolved into cells of fish, fowl, animal, and
man, all of which are different?
would natural selection have "known" to preserve or select the
components necessary for flight when the very concept of flight would have
been unknown and when most of the those components would have been useless
in and of themselves?
Atheistic evolution has no credible, rational answers to
these questions, in my opinion.†
These are some of the reasons I rejected evolution.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:† Michael T.† Griffith holds a Masterís degree in
Theology from The Catholic Distance University, a Graduate Certificate in
Ancient and Classical History from American
a Bachelorís degree in Liberal Arts from Excelsior College,
and two Associate in Applied Science degrees from the Community College of the
Air Force.† †He also holds an Advanced Certificate of Civil
War Studies and a Certificate of Civil War Studies from Carroll College.† †He is
a graduate in Arabic and Hebrew of the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, and
of the U.S.† Air Force Technical Training School
in San Angelo, Texas.† †In
addition, he has completed an Advanced Hebrew program at Haifa
University in Israel.† †He is
the author of five books on Mormonism and ancient texts, including How Firm A Foundation, A Ready Reply, and
One Lord, One Faith.