We know what a human is. Scientists have defined our kind with precision. With that precise definition of what constitutes a human, we can know that everything either is or is not a human. There is no middle ground. This principle of logic is known as the Law of Excluded Middle.1 If Darwin was right, then at some point in history, a non-human had to give rise to a human, either by transforming into a human or giving birth to a human.2 And yet there is absolutely no evidence of such an event occurring. Instead, we find that in nature, life comes from life of its own kind—a truth known as the Law of Biogenesis.3 Finches give birth to finches. Peppered moths have peppered moths. Horses have horses. Whales have whales. Bacteria have bacteria.
It has always intrigued me that the evolutionary side of the aisle seems to be notably silent about the fact that at the beginning of the human species, not merely a single human had to come into existence from a non-human—an impossible feat on its own. Neither is it the case that merely two human beings had to evolve onto the scene, either. Rather, at least one male and one distinctly different human being—the female; equipped with a significantly different anatomy—had to evolve simultaneously on the Earth in order for the human species to propagate itself. In other words,one male human could not have randomly come into existence one day, and a female two hundred years later. No, there had to be representatives of both genders on the Earth simultaneously, doubling the impossibility of the event.
Further, those male and female human bodies had to also contain the fully functional reproductive components that would be necessary to replicate humanity. And even further, those male and female human beings had to accidentally run into each other on planet Earth—a sphere with a surface area of 196,900,000 square miles. They had to find each other in what is thought to have been a very hostile and primitive Earthly environment as well—without first starving or being eaten by the ferocious animals that evolutionary images of early man portray.
They had to find each other while they were in the childbearing years, as well—not too old or young to reproduce before the other individual died. Assuming the two were able to find each other at the right time (and were willing and able to reproduce with each other), mother and child then had to survive the ordeal of child birth in those allegedly primitive circumstances.
Running into any one of these significant barriers to success would have killed off humans before we got started. If the accidental emergence of a single human being from a non-human being seems ludicrous to you, surely the other requirements necessary to make the species stick shows the evolutionary proposition to be beyond preposterous.
1 W. Stanley Jevons (1888), Elementary Lessons in Logic: Deductive & Inductive (New York: MacMillan), p. 119.
2 Antony G.N. Flew and Thomas B. Warren (1977), The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
3 Jeff Miller (2014), “God and the Laws of Science: Genetics vs. Evolution [Part 1],” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4779&topic=296.