Christian students often feel boxed in when a biology textbook presents evolution not as one scientific model among others, but as the unquestioned story of origins, meaning, and identity. The most important thing to understand at the start is that you are not obligated to surrender clear thinking just because a claim is printed in a glossy book with charts and confident captions. Scripture repeatedly commends careful discernment, honest evaluation of claims, and humility before God’s revealed truth. “Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) That verse does not grant permission to distrust every scientific observation; it commands you to test ideas responsibly and cling to what is actually true. When a textbook presents an origins narrative that excludes God by definition, the Christian must ask better questions—questions that expose hidden assumptions, category mistakes, and rhetorical shortcuts.

The questions below are not designed to make you anti-science. They are designed to make you pro-truth, which means you should be alert when a book slides from observed biology (variation, adaptation, heredity, natural selection within limits) into a sweeping claim that life, information, morality, and human personhood are accidental outcomes of unguided processes. Scripture teaches that created things do not explain themselves. “For every house is constructed by someone, but the One who constructed all things is God.” (Hebrews 3:4) The Christian is not arguing that God is a “gap filler” for ignorance; the Christian is insisting that creation is, by nature, the workmanship of a Creator, and that explanations which begin by denying God are not neutral. “The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge.” (Proverbs 1:7) If a textbook’s method requires that God be excluded from the start, then it is not simply describing nature; it is enforcing a worldview boundary and calling it “science.”

1. Origin of Life: What Exactly Did Miller–Urey Show, And What Did It Not Show?

Ask your textbook whether it is carefully distinguishing between chemistry and biology, between producing simple organic molecules and explaining the origin of the first living cell. Even if you grant that certain amino acids can form under particular laboratory conditions, that does not explain the origin of the integrated information, coding, and molecular machinery required for life. A textbook may speak as if producing “building blocks” is basically the same as building the house. That is rhetoric, not reasoning. The cell is not a bag of chemicals; it is a system of coordinated components that depend on one another, including information-bearing molecules and complex molecular machines. The origin-of-life question is not merely “Can amino acids form?” but “How did the first functional, information-rich, self-replicating system arise in a real-world setting without guided intelligence?” When a textbook portrays this as nearly solved, it is often substituting confidence for evidence.

Ask also whether the textbook is honest about early-atmosphere assumptions. The Miller–Urey setup used a highly reducing atmosphere to maximize yields of certain organics. Yet there has been long debate about whether Earth’s early atmosphere matched those conditions. Your question is not a cheap “gotcha.” It is a request for methodological honesty: if the experiment depends on a disputed starting scenario, then it cannot be presented as a direct demonstration of what happened. More importantly, even optimistic prebiotic chemistry does not cross the central barrier: the origin of specified, functional information. Scripture’s framework helps you see why. Life is not an accident waiting to happen; it is the product of intentional power and wisdom. “With You is the source of life.” (Psalm 36:9) When a textbook tells you that life emerged by unguided chemistry, it is not merely offering a scientific detail; it is offering an alternative doctrine of origins.

2. Darwin’s Tree of Life: Does The Evidence Fit A Simple Tree, Or Something More Complicated?

Textbooks often use the “tree of life” as a persuasive visual: everything branches neatly from common ancestors, and the picture feels explanatory even before evidence is considered. Ask whether the tree is being used as a conclusion presented as a premise. In real biology, patterns can be messy. Organisms share similarities for many reasons: shared function, shared constraints, shared design logic, and shared ecological requirements. A tree is one interpretive model, not the only possible way to organize similarities. Your question should push the textbook to justify why a simple branching pattern is the best explanation for the full range of biological data.

Also ask whether the book acknowledges the complications that challenge a clean tree. In microbiology, for example, the exchange of genetic material across lineages has led many to describe the history of life—at least among microbes—as network-like rather than tree-like. Even outside microbiology, patterns of similarity and difference do not always behave like a straightforward family tree. If the book presents the tree as a settled fact that “proves” common ancestry, it is likely smoothing over difficulties and using a diagram to do the persuasive work. Scripture warns against that kind of rhetorical certainty. “The one who answers a matter before he hears it—this is foolishness to him and humiliation.” (Proverbs 18:13) The Christian student is right to ask whether the textbook has truly “heard” the evidence in its complexity or whether it has forced the evidence into a favored picture.

3. Homology: Is The Definition Doing The Work Instead Of The Evidence?

Homology is a classic place where textbooks can quietly smuggle the conclusion into the definition. If a book defines homology as “similarity due to common ancestry,” and then points to homologous structures as evidence for common ancestry, you should recognize the circularity. The reasoning becomes: “These are similar because they share ancestry; we know they share ancestry because they are similar.” That is not scientific inference; it is a word game. The more careful approach is to describe similarities first—structure, development, genetic patterns, and functional constraints—then argue for the best explanation of those similarities, comparing competing models.

A Christian approach does not deny similarities. It expects them. The Creator’s work displays order, coherence, and intelligibility, which is precisely why science is possible. “He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also put eternity in their heart.” (Ecclesiastes 3:11) Similarity can reflect shared design principles, like engineers reusing successful solutions across different machines, because the same physical constraints and goals lead to similar effective structures. The student’s question should press the textbook to show why common ancestry is the necessary explanation, not merely a convenient label. If the book cannot move beyond definitional circularity, it is not demonstrating evolution; it is assuming it.

4. Vertebrate Embryos: Are The Illustrations Honest, And Are The Conclusions Overstated?

Many textbooks have historically leaned on embryo drawings to imply that vertebrates pass through stages that replay evolutionary history, suggesting that embryos “start as fish” and later become reptiles, mammals, and so on. Ask whether the textbook is presenting accurate, modern embryology or repeating outdated claims and images that were criticized long ago for exaggeration. When drawings flatten differences to create a stronger impression of sameness, they are not neutral educational tools; they are persuasion.

But even beyond questionable illustrations, ask whether the interpretation makes sense. Similarities in early development can arise because organisms share common constraints in building complex bodies: early stages establish basic body plans, and later stages refine specialized features. Similarity at certain stages does not logically require common ancestry; it requires only that similar biological problems are being solved in similar ways. Scripture teaches that humans are not the accidental endpoint of a mindless process; humans are deliberately made. “God said: ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.’” (Genesis 1:26) So when a textbook uses embryo images to argue that human identity is the by-product of an unguided chain, you should ask whether it has earned that claim or whether it is trading on a misleading visual narrative.

5. Peppered Moths: Does The Example Demonstrate What The Caption Claims?

Peppered moths are often presented as a simple, powerful proof of natural selection: darker moths survive better in polluted environments because they blend in, while lighter moths survive better in cleaner environments. Variation and selection can be real, but the student should ask whether the textbook’s pictures, staging, and simplified story match the actual natural behavior and ecology of the moths. If the book shows moths resting conspicuously on tree trunks in a way that serves the camera more than the biology, you should ask whether the demonstration has been dramatized.

Even if differential predation occurred, ask what the example actually proves. Shifts in trait frequencies within a population demonstrate selection acting on existing variation. They do not, by themselves, demonstrate the origin of new organs, new body plans, or new genetic information. A textbook may subtly imply that because selection can shift color frequencies, it can also build the complexity of life. That is a leap. Selection can explain why certain traits become more common; it does not automatically explain the arrival of the traits in the first place. Scripture’s wisdom applies: “Do not be deceived.” (Galatians 6:7) The Christian student is not rejecting adaptation; he is rejecting the bait-and-switch where small-scale change is treated as proof for grand-scale origins claims.

6. Darwin’s Finches: Are Short-Term Shifts Being Sold As Long-Term Origin Stories?

Changes in finch beaks are frequently used to show evolution in action. Ask whether the textbook is distinguishing between fluctuation and transformation. In finch populations, beak size can shift in response to environmental conditions, such as droughts affecting available seeds. These shifts can be impressive and measurable, but your textbook should be pressed on what they demonstrate. Do these changes create new genetic information or merely reshuffle or select among existing traits? Do the shifts persist across time, or do they oscillate with changing conditions? Do the finches become reproductively isolated in a way that would support the claim of new species in the deeper, macroevolutionary sense?

Also ask whether the example is being framed as a philosophical story about purposelessness rather than a biological account of variation. Scripture teaches that living kinds reproduce “according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:11–12, 21, 24–25) That language is not a modern taxonomic chart, but it does establish a boundary concept: reproduction brings forth within created categories, not an unbounded transformation of one kind into a fundamentally different kind. Finches adapting as finches fits that boundary concept well. The question is whether the textbook is honestly presenting finch adaptation or using it as a stepping-stone to claims it has not demonstrated.

7. Mutant Fruit Flies: Do Mutations Build Systems, Or Do They Mostly Break Them?

Fruit fly mutations are sometimes showcased with dramatic images—extra wings, distorted bodies, altered eye colors—then presented as proof that mutations supply the raw materials for evolutionary innovation. Ask the textbook whether it is being candid about what most mutations do to complex systems. In living organisms, functional systems are tightly integrated. Random changes to those systems overwhelmingly disrupt function rather than create new, coherent, beneficial machinery. When a fly grows an extra pair of wings that are unusable or a body plan that is impaired, the example is not an innovation; it is a breakdown.

A careful textbook should also distinguish between mutations that alter existing features and the origin of new specified functions. The deeper question is whether random mutation and selection can generate the kind of coordinated changes needed for new complex structures. Showing a broken or maladaptive mutation does not demonstrate creative power. It demonstrates the fragility of integrated design. Scripture’s teaching about a world damaged by sin helps Christians make sense of biological decline and disorder without pretending that disorder is a creative engine. “Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin.” (Romans 5:12) That does not mean every mutation is directly “caused” by a specific act; it means the world is not morally or physically neutral. A textbook that presents genetic damage as a creative force is asking you to accept an interpretation that runs against both biological realism and biblical worldview.

8. Human Origins: Are Illustrations Being Used To Replace Evidence With Imagination?

Textbooks often include artist reconstructions of ape-like humans, arranged in a tidy progression that tells a story: you are the product of an unguided process, and your uniqueness is a temporary illusion. Ask whether the textbook is presenting hard evidence or leaning on imaginative reconstructions. Fossil interpretation involves real data—bones, fragments, measurements—but reconstructing appearance, posture, hair, skin, and behavior requires many assumptions. When experts disagree about classification and lineage relationships, a neat textbook narrative can function as propaganda: it gives the impression of certainty where there is dispute.

More importantly, ask what the human person is in the textbook’s framework. If humans are reduced to advanced animals, moral responsibility becomes difficult to ground, and the image of God is denied by definition. Scripture’s teaching is unambiguous: humans are intentionally made in God’s image and thus possess a distinct dignity and moral accountability. “Jehovah God formed the man out of dust from the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7) That verse also corrects a common cultural error: man does not have an immortal soul inside him; he is a soul—a living person. When a textbook treats humans as accidental by-products, it is not just teaching biology; it is teaching anthropology and ethics while pretending it is only teaching science. Your question should expose that category shift.

9. Walking Whales: Do Fossils Show A Smooth Gradual Transition, Or A Story Built From Select Specimens?

Textbooks often present a sequence of whale fossils as if the evidence shows a smooth, step-by-step transformation from a land mammal to a fully aquatic whale. Ask whether the book is honest about the gaps, the disputed relationships, and the interpretive leaps required to turn scattered fossils into a clean narrative. Fossils are real. The question is not whether fossils exist; it is whether the textbook’s story is as straightforward as the pictures imply. A sequence can be arranged to look like a pathway, but arrangement is not demonstration. It can reflect a chosen interpretation rather than an observed transformation.

Ask also whether the textbook distinguishes between “rapid” change in geological terms and the kind of detailed mechanism needed to explain new integrated systems. A shift to aquatic life would involve coordinated changes in locomotion, respiration, reproduction, sensory systems, thermoregulation, and many other features. The more integrated the system, the harder it is to explain by piecemeal steps that each preserve survivability and reproductive success. Scripture’s insistence on created order and purpose provides a stable alternative: complex living systems reflect wisdom, not accident. “O Jehovah, how many Your works are! You have made all of them in wisdom.” (Psalm 104:24) Your question presses the textbook to earn its claims rather than relying on an illustrated storyline.

10. The Human Eye: Is The Textbook Criticizing Design While Ignoring Function?

Some textbooks claim the human eye is “poorly designed,” often pointing to features like the retina’s orientation. Ask whether the critique is informed by real physiology and engineering tradeoffs or by a desire to mock design. In complex systems, what looks like a flaw from one angle can be part of a broader optimization. The human eye is an extraordinarily capable organ: high-resolution vision, dynamic range, color discrimination, rapid processing, adaptation to light changes, and tight integration with the brain. When a textbook highlights a supposed defect while downplaying the system’s excellence, it may be guiding you toward a philosophical conclusion rather than giving you a balanced evaluation.

Ask the deeper question: What standard of “good design” is being used? Declaring a feature “bad” assumes a purpose and a benchmark. If the textbook insists the eye is a product of unguided processes, then the category of “poor design” becomes confusing—design language smuggles in intentionality even while denying intentionality. Scripture teaches that God’s works are purposeful and good, even in a world damaged by sin and subject to decay. “For since the creation of the world His invisible qualities are clearly seen, being perceived by the things made.” (Romans 1:20) The issue is not that Christians deny biological limitations; the issue is whether a textbook uses selective complaints to advance the claim that there is no Creator.

Asking These Questions With Courage And Integrity

Students sometimes worry that questioning a textbook will make them look ignorant or rebellious. But Scripture does not train you to be passive. It trains you to be discerning, truthful, and steady under pressure. “Do not be conformed to this system of things, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” (Romans 12:2) That renewing is not emotional stubbornness; it is disciplined thinking shaped by God’s Word. When a textbook treats evolution as an all-explaining story that makes God unnecessary, you are permitted—and required—to ask whether the evidence supports the story or whether the story is controlling the interpretation of the evidence.

You should also remember that the Christian worldview provides a coherent foundation for doing science. If God created an orderly universe, then nature can be studied; if humans are made in God’s image, then our rational capacities are meaningful; if truth matters to God, then accuracy matters in the classroom. “Sanctify them by means of the truth; Your word is truth.” (John 17:17) That verse does not tell you to use Scripture as a substitute for biology homework; it tells you to evaluate every claim under the authority of God’s truth. When you ask these ten questions, you are not escaping science. You are refusing to let a worldview masquerade as science.

You May Also Enjoy

A Critique on the Tree of Life: Challenging Evolutionary Assumptions

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS