Why Germs Do Not Evolve into Mozart

Bacteria are the Fittest: No Need to Evolve into Weak Large-mass Organisms

By Mike Robinson

Granbury, Texas

There is no reason for single-celled organisms to evolve into 'higher' forms

Bacteria: Any of a group of microscopic single-celled organisms that live in enormous numbers in almost every environment on Earth, from deep-sea vents to deep below Earth’s surface to the digestive tracts of humans. [They are] the dominant living creatures on Earth, having been present for perhaps three-quarters of Earth history and having adapted to almost all available ecological habitats. As a group, they display exceedingly diverse metabolic capabilities and can use almost any organic compound (Encyclopedia Britannia).

For three billion years, more or less, the evolution of species proceeded ponderously along a hit-or-miss fashion, until... a sufficiently intelligent species evolved. Then the intelligence took a hand, and evolution was never the same again. The key to evolution is randomness. [1]

There is a constant need in our civilization to prefer illusions over reality, a need to deny our perceptions. [2]

I have never heard the scientific grounds for the need of a bacterium to evolve into a “higher” form. The bacteria appear to be some of the fittest creatures on the planet, only rivaled by cockroaches. These two types of organisms do not need to evolve. They survive quite nicely. Nothing is more tenacious, more resilient, more stout, and produces more functioning and self-procuring offspring than bacteria. Why would they need to evolve? Why would cockroaches need to evolve? They could survive a nuclear bomb. The organisms that evolutionists claim as the “higher” creatures, die off easier and quicker, and produce far less offspring. The higher up the ladder, the more likely the organism is extinct or is put on the endangered species list. Look how fragile the whales and the great apes are as a species—weeds, bugs, and germs are vigorous survivors because they are much harder to kill.

Why would a cockroach evolve? They can survive almost anything

Large body mass creatures are much less fit than the tenacious organisms like bacteria and cockroaches. The evolutionists do not have to deal with just a missing link; the whole chain is gone. Only God and His revelation can give us a foundation for science.[3] The theory of survival of the fittest does not comport with the reality of ultra-resilient cockroaches because they do not need to evolve into higher forms. They do just fine without knowing Mickey Mouse or Plato. Bacteria would not become more stout and produce more survivable offspring if they could read poetry or applaud Tiger Woods. Bacteria do not have determination or conviction. Even if they did, how could that resolve give them the innate force to evolve? They would need purpose and the means to fulfill that purpose, a teleological reason. This can only come when there is intelligence and purpose. A universe composed of only matter and motion cannot produce teleology, hence unguided evolution is a myth; it is fable for profligate adults. It not only does not gel with the facts; it is impossible for it to be true.

Odds, Probability, and Certainty

Hoyle, the Cambridge Astronomer, once said that the odds of life arising by chance have about the same probability of “a tornado blowing through a junk yard and forming a Boeing 747.” That is devastating to those who submit to the blind faith of evolution. Yet it is much worse than that. There are no odds for the existence of God. There are no probabilities. It is impossible for the God of the Bible not to exist. Without God, one cannot discuss or argue about the theory of evolution. S.E.T.I., the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, scans the heavens for codes, information, language, and patterns. They base their work on the theory that finding a radio signal with a code would prove there are intelligent beings out there in the vast reaches of the universe. The premise is: a code presupposes a code-giver. A code-giver has intelligence. Within the Christian worldview, this makes sense. The baffling thing is to watch the scientists, who study the DNA code, fail to make the same deduction. They would if an alien sent a simple code over the air waves. This type of fuzzy reasoning is the problem with the theory of unguided

A code-giver presupposes intelligence, yet this is often ignored by evolution.

Unbelieving men suppress the truth in unrighteousness. The Christian is not to battle in the trenches with our facts against the Darwinian materialist’s facts. We must demonstrate that without the true God, as the pre-requirement of all our thought, we cannot make sense of anything in the abstract or in the biological. My uncle is not a monkey, and my grand dad is not a polliwog. I am not a product of monkeydom; I am created in the image of God. Mozart, Milton, and moms are not the product of unguided animated stardust. Evolutionists want their father to be a muskrat and their mother to be an opossum. They delight in the fairy tale that their great aunt was a tadpole or snapping turtle. But if man evolved from an animal, then all humans are animals, and this gives them license to behave like animals.

The funny thing is the doctrine of evolution presupposes God since this false notion employs the laws of logic[4] since only the immutable God has the capacity to ground such immutable laws. Science presupposes God. Induction presupposes God. So all their crazy theories require God. All true and false postulations need God and His revelation as the precondition of their intelligibility.

The Bible speaks of God as the Creator with absolute certainty. There is not a cosmic odds-giver crunching the probability of the existence of God Almighty. We are told that one cell is made up of 100,000 molecules; that 10,000 finely tuned, interrelated chemical reactions occur concurrently. That a cell contains, in its nucleus, a digitally coded database larger than thirty volumes of an encyclopedia. The apologists then explain that the odds of this happening by chance are overwhelming. They say the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt, so it’s probably true. The truth of the matter is; God’s existence is not a probability. The odds-giver should not give a thousand to one odds that this world was created by a Creator. There is absolute certainty that God lives, and that He created all things in the heavens and the earth, period. We must have God, as the pre-essential of creation, or nothing in the cosmos can make sense.

The wicked in his proud countenance does not seek God; God is in none of his thoughts. His ways are always prospering; Your judgments are far above, out of his sight; as for all his enemies, he sneers at them. He has said in his heart, “I shall not be moved; I shall never be in adversity” (Psalms 10:4-6).


See my new book on Amazon God’s Not Dead: Many Proofs  HERE on Amazon 



1.        Isaac Asimov, Science Past - Science Future  (N.Y.: Ace Books, 1975), p. 207.

2.        John Saul, Voltaire’s Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West  (NY: Random House,  1992), p. 11.       

3. God furnishes all the a priori essentials; the necessary epistemic equipment utilized in all scientific pursuits. God has the ontic attributes of omniscience, immutability, and omnipotence (He has universal reign) thus enabling Him to be the ground for the universal and immutable laws of logic that are utilized in all thought and analysis. Any position that rejects the true God, as the epistemic (knowledge) base, not only leaves an unnerving fissure, but hopelessly fails too. Consequently, whatever evidence science discovers must be discerned and processed with the rational implements that arise from Christian theism and the worldview that emanates from God. The immaterial, transcendent, and immutable God supplies the indispensable pre-environment for the use of immaterial, transcendent, universal, and immutable laws of logic. Atheistic thought, because it rests upon mutable and non-universal ground, cannot furnish the necessary preconditions for the immutable universal laws of logic; therefore it results in futility because of its own internal weakness.

4.        The Laws of Logic: Abstract, non-concrete laws of thought and reason that are immaterial, aspatial, universal, obligatory, necessary, immutable, and absolute. Some academics identify them as the laws of thought or the laws of reason. A few scholars strongly prefer to name them the laws of logic because they are independent of human minds. All rational thinking (and science) presupposes and uses the laws of logic. The most well-known law is the Law of Non-contradiction: A cannot be A and Non-A at the same time in the same way. Consequently a man cannot be his own father. The laws of logic reflect the nature and mind of God; thus, they have ontological grounding—that is, they are grounded in the very nature of truth itself and cannot be reduced to human convention, opinion or psychology. Without these laws, knowledge and rational thinking are impossible. To deny the laws of logic, one must use these laws in one’s attempt to deny them. Those who deny the laws of logic are participating in a self-defeating endeavor.