Arguments Against Evolution
by Dave Brown
Return to Understanding Page
Preface: this article is in draft mode and we invited critical review to help us improve it. Please contact us. To those who wish to comment, please click the button above and get into the e-mail mode -- that will make things much easier than to try to do with with multiple tweets. Also, please critique the article one section at a time so that our discussions can be targeted and meaningful. Thanks -- dave
This article is an abstract of a much more detailed, and extremely well documented, article that is available here:
http://www.changinglives.org.au/evolution.html
Any non-referenced quotes within this abstract are from this source. We appreciate the efforts that this organization has made to accumulate and document these arguments. Our goal is to condense these conclusions so that they are easier to understand by the non-technical reader.
Introduction
Definitions
One dishonest debating ploy is to attempt to redefine the words the opponent is using in such a way that his arguments become meaningless. To avoid being accused of this, we will go with standard dictionary definitions for the following:
The word evolution used in this abstract when not qualified by the macro- or micro- prefixes will refer to macroevolution. There is no question that microevolution occurs within most (possibly all) species, and any number of examples of it can be given (e.g., the Peppered Moth, which we will discuss below). This survival mechanism was created by God in nature to sustain His universe of living things. The easily-demonstrated microevolution is often used to prove macroevolution; however, it is not at all evidence of macroevolution. To generalize microevolution into macroevolution results from the logical flaw of hasty generalization. Christians greatly weaken their case against macroevolution when they criticize evolution in general without this qualification, since microevolution has been observed and scientifically proven.
To emphasize this point we will spell out macroevolution when that is the subject. However, when we use the term evolutionist, we are talking about those who have eliiminated all consideration of God in creation, i.e., those who believe in all aspects of macroevolution. The "theory of evolution" would better be called the "theory of macroevolution."
What does the theory of macroevolution need to explain?
The burden of proof is on those who claim that macroevolution is a “scientifically proven fact.” The statement that “all competent scientists accept evolution” is not proof since: (1) it is not true – there are many scientists that do not accept macroevolution as a fact, and (2) even if they did, this would still be a matter of commonly accepted faith as opposed to scientific proof. Over the ages the vast majority of a given scientific community have often been brow-beaten into claiming that they believed many things that were not true. One only needs to take a contradictory stand toward some aspect of evolution to see the pressures that will be applied to conform.
It is the evolutionist that states that macroevolution is a proven scientific fact. Thus, it is not the Christian's responsibility to prove it false; indeed such is an impossible demand. It is those who state that it has been proven scientifically to clearly present this proof. The burden of proof is upon evolutionists to demonstrate that certain general theorems are valid; among them:
1a. The Universe Could Not Have Created Itself
In order for the universe to create itself, it would have to pre-exist itself. This same argument might be made against God, but the Bible teaches that God is eternal both in the past and in the future. By definition, God has always existed, so to attribute creation to Him is not absurd at all. We do not say that God created Himself; we believe Him to be a higher life form that is not bound by time and space because He created both. For those who do not believe in any such being (Force, Existence, or whatever He/She/It might be called), they are bound to explain how anything could come into existence without the existence of such a creating force. This document is not asserting that the Creator has to be the God of the bible – indeed that is a totally different subject – all we are asserting is that some such Creator had to exist. Since the evolutionist cannot give it any explanation, they attribute creation to a big bang. This is a tacit admission that they have no explanation for it at all, and thus a Creator is a much more reasonable explanation than anything they assert.
1b. The Universe Could Not Have Always Existed
Given that it is impossible to create matter apart from some higher Creator life form that understands and is in total control of such things, the next attempt to rule out God is so assert that matter always existed. Scientists can prove that this is not possible by what they call the First Law of Thermodynamics. But you do not have to be a scientist to understand that things burn out over time. As an example, our sun is known to be burning out. According to Space.com, “The sun has used up about half of its hydrogen fuel in the last 4.6 billion years, since its birth. It still has enough hydrogen to last about another 5 billion years.” Of course, this assumes that there was some zero starting point for it where all of its hydrogen was available; we know that God has no such constraints – He could have created it half worn out if that suited His purpose. Now 5 billion years might sound like a long time, but it is literally nothing compared to infinity. If the sun has always existed it would have long since burned out as would every other star and energy source in the universe. If the sun cannot last forever, it would have to have burned out by now, since we are now “forever” from that infinite starting point. Forever in the past is infinity, and there is only a finite amount of energy in the universe. It would have been dissipated long ago. The universe as we know it had to have had a beginning, which puts us back to the arguments in Section 1a. The “it’s been here forever” argument is not only unreasonable, it can be proven to be scientifically impossible.
2. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Precludes Greater Natural Ordering
You do not have to be a trained scientist to understand these arguments. You might do a little reading on the Second Law of Thermodynamics on Wikipedia to get a feel for it, but like the first law, it is largely common sense. It has been stated in a practical sense as “there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.” When God cursed the ground (Genesis 3:17) he set everything in the universe as we know it in a state of decay. This is so observable all around and should be totally beyond any controversy – things rust, decay and rot. The Second Law of Thermodynamics essentially formalizes this reality by stating that in any closed system the organization of components will always go from a state of order to a state of disorder, unless there are counter forces working to overcome that disorder. How long would our cars last if they are not given maintenance, such as a simple oil change? Do they ever create within themselves methods by which the future oil changes will no longer be needed?
The argument that is made is that living organisms are exceptions to this law. The burden of proof is on the evolutionist to explain the reason for this. They will claim that all life, and even consciousness, has a physical explanation. But for some reason natural selection intervenes and keeps living organisms in a state of constant improvement rather than decline. We agree that this (microevolution) accounts for the balance in nature that maintains various life forms within their respective kinds. But it does not account for new kinds emerging from existing kinds.
Living organisms wear out just like other physical machines. One manifestation of this is cancer. It has been stated by experts on this subject that if we all lived long enough we would all get cancer, and the fact that cancer is more predominant in older people confirms this argument. Cancer is the result of a mutation; is there any record of cancer causing a superior life form (kind) to emerge?
If living things are destined to evolve to higher and more complex organisms, there would have to be some cause to make it happen. God could have created the various life forms in this way, but it would take His intervention all along the way, because there is nothing in nature that would enable natural selection to do anything more than maintain the kinds. The burden of proof is on the evolutionist to demonstrate what the causal element is that results in superior kinds evolving.
3. Life Cannot Evolve from Non-Living Matter
It would seem that the biggest leap of faith for the evolutionist is the origination of life itself from non-living matter. Such has never been demonstrated in the laboratory or observed in nature. All living things have come about from other living things. The argument is that it had to have happened because life abounds. This is the logical flaw of begging the question; that conclusion has to be based on the assumption that God does not exist, and thus, He could not have created life. No one can argue that if you assume God out of the argument from the outset that evolution is not the next-best theory; but we are not willing to be that close-minded. Why exclude the possibility of a Creator?
But for a moment let us stipulate that some weird combination of circumstances did occur that created life. There is still a problem for the evolutionist. The characteristic of consciousness does not exist in the lowest forms of life (e.g., mold). At some point this crud would have to acquire a sufficient degree of intelligence to be able to perceive that it existed, a characteristic that we call consciousness. How could such evolve from nothing other than natural selection? There is a major scientific/medical lack of understanding of consciousness and the connection between brain waves and our self-awareness. Again the only explanation for the evolutionists is that it had to have evolved because it currently exists. This circular argument begs the question once again, and again the existence of a Creator whose knowledge of such things is infinitely above ours is much a more reasonable explanation.
4. Complex Interdependent Components Cannot Evolve Incrementally
Darwin confessed that stating that natural selection could account for the evolution of the eye with all of its interdependent parts had to be considered “absurd in the highest degree.” There are many components of higher level living organisms that are much more complex than the most sophisticated automobile. We can all understand that a car can hardly be considered as functional unless all of its essential components function to some rudimentary degree. If we were to remove the spark plugs, for example it would become totally disabled. Similarly with the carburetor. There are many human organs that have dozens of interdependent components such as this, and they will not function at all unless every component is present and totally operational. Natural selection could not possibly take advantage of the development of some of these components unless they were all perfectly in place and functional. The presence of some and not others could even cause the organism to deteriorate.
Since there is no way that such components can evolve one at a time, the evolutionist has to claim that all of these components came about simultaneously through a process of mutation (if such can be called a process). If ten components are essential to the functioning of a given organ, for example, it would do no good, natural-selection-wise, for nine of them to somehow evolve, since the only advantage the organism could possibly have would be for all ten of them to function simultaneously.
“A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular … an immune system” … and many others. If a baby should be unlucky enough to be born without one of these, s/he will not likely survive. Yet we are expected to believe that such an organism did exists on the way to getting everything working together perfectly. While this is considering the entire organism, we must realize that there are any number of internal organs with such components that are all-or-nothing in their functionality. The protein motors that enable human movement are examples of organs that have a large number of interacting components the absence of any one of which will prevent the organ from being functional. Their coming into existence without their partial composition serving any function defies natural selection as being the cause for their evolution.
Unlike species cannot mate because the DNA in the male sperm must be comparable to that of the female egg for the necessary match to take place. The chromosomes and genes from the sperm have to combine with the mother's contribution. For these to join together they have to be the same number of chromosomes and contain the same number of genes. There are exceptional examples, but they are exceptions. Let us suppose that a new species is formed in a particular male by some mutation event. This could explain the evolution of a new species if it were not for the fact that the identical mutation would have to occur in the female in order for them to mate and have offspring, which is essential to the propagation of the new species. Timing and co-location is crucial – if this should happen to a male and female separated in either time or distance, successful mating could not occur.
“There is no evidence anywhere of the evolution of such [interdependent - dbb] systems. More than that, not even any hypothetical process can be thought of to explain how something like the brain and the digestive system could have evolved bit by bit over time!”
5. Missing Intermediate Links Defy Macroevolution
The term “after its kind” occurs ten times in Genesis 1:11-25. Was the writer lucky, was he a genetic scientist, or is that just the way God set things up? Macroevolution claims that new “kinds” arise very slowly and incrementally over a long period of time, or they could arise instantaneously by mutation. We will use the Bible word “kind” since microevolution might produce variations that some might call a different species, and we do not want to get into arguing semantics. We saw in the section above how unlikely it would be to produce a new kind with a different number of chromosomes or genes by concurrent identical mutations in the male and female, but for a moment let us entertain the possibility.
In that case we would expect to find large variations of intermediate kinds that have the characteristics of both the source and destination kinds that can be seen today. None have actually been found in the fossil record, and the great hype that follows when someone claims to have found just one attests to how few and far between these alleged “finds” are.
But let’s take it one step further. If an intermediate kind had to exist for a long period of time in order to generate the next step on the evolution chain, why would there not be survivors today? What active force came along and killed all remnants of these intermediate life forms?, and why would it behave in this way? Why did all of these intermediate kinds not only die out, but all traces of them have vanished off of the face of the earth as far as the fossil record is concerned. Their inability to compete with the superior life forms is far from an adequate explanation in that the inferior kinds from which they allegedly evolved have indeed survived.
6. Extreme Mutations Cannot Create Improvements
This adjective extreme creates the inference that small mutations do cause improvement. This is the basis of microevolution, which we stated above can produce beneficial effects through the process of natural selection. An excellent example that is given is the Peppered Moths event in 1848 in Manchester, England, where soot turned the trees black, and those moths that remained predominantly white were quickly consumed by birds. Those that had a genetic makeup that would disguise them survived and their interbreeding over a relatively short period of time essentially changed the entire population of moths from peppered white to black. The first moths to “not be so white” would be that way due to some slight mutation in its DNA and genetic makeup that would result in the different coloration. The snow-shoe rabbit is another great example where natural selection has not only changed coloration but also developed back legs that are able to stay on top of the snow in northern climates. But the moth is still a moth and the rabbit is still a rabbit.
This is microevolution, and it should be recognized as a natural method created by God to enable all living beings to cope with changes in their environment. But not all microevolution is positive. For example, cancer is caused by cells somehow turning off the gene that causes them to die at the same time as their reproduction is increased. See Cancer and Genetics.
Most evolutionists will admit that the minor changes of microevolution, which often cycle back to the original state, cannot account for the significant changes that would be required to create a new kind. For this they fall back on what we are calling extreme mutations.
“Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on genetic material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW genetic material. Mutations are random changes in the genetic makeup of organisms. Evolutionists say that mutations supply the new genes needed for evolution to proceed.” But this has never been observed in nature or in the laboratory. The fruit fly mutation is still a fruit fly. Something very strange would have to occur for mutations that usually cause deformities and cancer to result in a new species. And as we have discussed above, for this species to reproduce, this same mutation would have to occur simultaneously in the male and the female or the combining of their DNA in the mating process would not be successful.
7. Events Do Not Happen Just Because They Are Possible
There is an over-riding tenet in evolution theory that says that if it is at all possible for something to happen, sooner or later it will. We invite you to concoct some very unlikely scenario and apply this premise to it. “Surely, if it is possible then sooner or later it is bound to occur,” right? This is the reason that the evolution of life on earth had to have started about 4 billion years ago. If evolution of life were so inevitable, one would wonder why, after the trillions of years that the universe has been in existence, a wide variety of life forms do not exist in countless places in this universe. For example, why would life have to be carbon based? Why could it not be sulfur-based, or based on any other element?
But back to the subject. It is possible that a tornado could go through a slum area of a city and when everything settled down all of the debris would be assembled into a neat subdivision with world-class carpentry and masonry. Since this is possible, do you believe that it will happen at some time in the future? Of course not. Well then, why would you believe that it has happened in the past? In fact, given the independent nature of the various houses, a 20 block subdivision would be far less complicated than a human body. We discuss the complexities of the human organism in another article, and once you read that article you will see that the human body is far more complex than such a subdivision.
We could apply probability theory to the problem to determine that such has a probability so small that this page would not be able to contain all of the zeros after the decimal point. But the evolutionist will push that aside because, since, "given enough time it has to happen." The idea that if something is possible then given enough time, it has to happen, is a driving force of macroevolution theory. The far more reasonable position is that there are some low-probably events that will not occur regardless of how much time they are given. Prove it to yourself -- try to flip a coin heads 10 times in a row, an event that has a probability of about 1 in 1000 (0.001), which is an extremely large probability compared to many of the events that must occur for macroevolution to be a reality.
Conclusion
In this article we have stayed away from things that are scientifically complex, but rather appeal to common sense. When confronted with all of the jargon and other complexities of science, many will just give up and agree with what the majority of scientists state. And, for the most part, there is little harm in that. But when our eternal destiny is in the balance, it would be good for us to realize that the same Creator who made us gave us our brain and our reasoning powers – what we call common sense, which is independent of our educational process. As such, God expects us to use it along with the Bible to determine what is the right and wrong of most matters. This is not a difficult process if we put aside what other people (even scientists) believe and just look at the simple facts. The primary assumption of evolution is that God does not exist, or, if He does, He did not take part in Creation. We can accept no such pre-assumptions, realizing not only could God exists, but that He is the most reasonable explanation not only for the creation, but for the mechanisms of natural selection that sustain our lives and our environment.
There is nothing more important that God's conditions of salvation.
Return to Why I Believe the Bible
This article is an abstract of a much more detailed, and extremely well documented, article that is available here:
http://www.changinglives.org.au/evolution.html
Any non-referenced quotes within this abstract are from this source. We appreciate the efforts that this organization has made to accumulate and document these arguments. Our goal is to condense these conclusions so that they are easier to understand by the non-technical reader.
Introduction
Definitions
One dishonest debating ploy is to attempt to redefine the words the opponent is using in such a way that his arguments become meaningless. To avoid being accused of this, we will go with standard dictionary definitions for the following:
- Microevolution – small-scale evolution consisting of genetic changes occurring usually within a single species and over a shorter period of time than in macroevolution.
- Macroevolution – the theory that large-scale evolution has occurred over a very long period time resulting in the formation of new species and higher-level taxonomic groups.
The word evolution used in this abstract when not qualified by the macro- or micro- prefixes will refer to macroevolution. There is no question that microevolution occurs within most (possibly all) species, and any number of examples of it can be given (e.g., the Peppered Moth, which we will discuss below). This survival mechanism was created by God in nature to sustain His universe of living things. The easily-demonstrated microevolution is often used to prove macroevolution; however, it is not at all evidence of macroevolution. To generalize microevolution into macroevolution results from the logical flaw of hasty generalization. Christians greatly weaken their case against macroevolution when they criticize evolution in general without this qualification, since microevolution has been observed and scientifically proven.
To emphasize this point we will spell out macroevolution when that is the subject. However, when we use the term evolutionist, we are talking about those who have eliiminated all consideration of God in creation, i.e., those who believe in all aspects of macroevolution. The "theory of evolution" would better be called the "theory of macroevolution."
What does the theory of macroevolution need to explain?
The burden of proof is on those who claim that macroevolution is a “scientifically proven fact.” The statement that “all competent scientists accept evolution” is not proof since: (1) it is not true – there are many scientists that do not accept macroevolution as a fact, and (2) even if they did, this would still be a matter of commonly accepted faith as opposed to scientific proof. Over the ages the vast majority of a given scientific community have often been brow-beaten into claiming that they believed many things that were not true. One only needs to take a contradictory stand toward some aspect of evolution to see the pressures that will be applied to conform.
It is the evolutionist that states that macroevolution is a proven scientific fact. Thus, it is not the Christian's responsibility to prove it false; indeed such is an impossible demand. It is those who state that it has been proven scientifically to clearly present this proof. The burden of proof is upon evolutionists to demonstrate that certain general theorems are valid; among them:
- That all matter (the universe of material things) came into being without a designer or Creator;
- That random, mindless, blind and unguided processes produce increasingly sophisticated life forms;
- That living organisms become more and more organized over time, violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics;
- That life can spontaneously emerge from a combination of non-living substances;
- That several interdependent components of an organ can evolve simultaneously by natural selection, when it take the completed organ to create any advantage to the involved organism;
- That there is a natural explanation for the absence of millions of missing links that should not only exist in the fossil record, but that should be observable in living things today;
- That severe mutations, which have consistently been observed to cause deformities and cancers within organisms, can suddenly produce a new species;
- That just because something is possible it will happen, given enough time.
1a. The Universe Could Not Have Created Itself
In order for the universe to create itself, it would have to pre-exist itself. This same argument might be made against God, but the Bible teaches that God is eternal both in the past and in the future. By definition, God has always existed, so to attribute creation to Him is not absurd at all. We do not say that God created Himself; we believe Him to be a higher life form that is not bound by time and space because He created both. For those who do not believe in any such being (Force, Existence, or whatever He/She/It might be called), they are bound to explain how anything could come into existence without the existence of such a creating force. This document is not asserting that the Creator has to be the God of the bible – indeed that is a totally different subject – all we are asserting is that some such Creator had to exist. Since the evolutionist cannot give it any explanation, they attribute creation to a big bang. This is a tacit admission that they have no explanation for it at all, and thus a Creator is a much more reasonable explanation than anything they assert.
1b. The Universe Could Not Have Always Existed
Given that it is impossible to create matter apart from some higher Creator life form that understands and is in total control of such things, the next attempt to rule out God is so assert that matter always existed. Scientists can prove that this is not possible by what they call the First Law of Thermodynamics. But you do not have to be a scientist to understand that things burn out over time. As an example, our sun is known to be burning out. According to Space.com, “The sun has used up about half of its hydrogen fuel in the last 4.6 billion years, since its birth. It still has enough hydrogen to last about another 5 billion years.” Of course, this assumes that there was some zero starting point for it where all of its hydrogen was available; we know that God has no such constraints – He could have created it half worn out if that suited His purpose. Now 5 billion years might sound like a long time, but it is literally nothing compared to infinity. If the sun has always existed it would have long since burned out as would every other star and energy source in the universe. If the sun cannot last forever, it would have to have burned out by now, since we are now “forever” from that infinite starting point. Forever in the past is infinity, and there is only a finite amount of energy in the universe. It would have been dissipated long ago. The universe as we know it had to have had a beginning, which puts us back to the arguments in Section 1a. The “it’s been here forever” argument is not only unreasonable, it can be proven to be scientifically impossible.
2. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Precludes Greater Natural Ordering
You do not have to be a trained scientist to understand these arguments. You might do a little reading on the Second Law of Thermodynamics on Wikipedia to get a feel for it, but like the first law, it is largely common sense. It has been stated in a practical sense as “there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.” When God cursed the ground (Genesis 3:17) he set everything in the universe as we know it in a state of decay. This is so observable all around and should be totally beyond any controversy – things rust, decay and rot. The Second Law of Thermodynamics essentially formalizes this reality by stating that in any closed system the organization of components will always go from a state of order to a state of disorder, unless there are counter forces working to overcome that disorder. How long would our cars last if they are not given maintenance, such as a simple oil change? Do they ever create within themselves methods by which the future oil changes will no longer be needed?
The argument that is made is that living organisms are exceptions to this law. The burden of proof is on the evolutionist to explain the reason for this. They will claim that all life, and even consciousness, has a physical explanation. But for some reason natural selection intervenes and keeps living organisms in a state of constant improvement rather than decline. We agree that this (microevolution) accounts for the balance in nature that maintains various life forms within their respective kinds. But it does not account for new kinds emerging from existing kinds.
Living organisms wear out just like other physical machines. One manifestation of this is cancer. It has been stated by experts on this subject that if we all lived long enough we would all get cancer, and the fact that cancer is more predominant in older people confirms this argument. Cancer is the result of a mutation; is there any record of cancer causing a superior life form (kind) to emerge?
If living things are destined to evolve to higher and more complex organisms, there would have to be some cause to make it happen. God could have created the various life forms in this way, but it would take His intervention all along the way, because there is nothing in nature that would enable natural selection to do anything more than maintain the kinds. The burden of proof is on the evolutionist to demonstrate what the causal element is that results in superior kinds evolving.
3. Life Cannot Evolve from Non-Living Matter
It would seem that the biggest leap of faith for the evolutionist is the origination of life itself from non-living matter. Such has never been demonstrated in the laboratory or observed in nature. All living things have come about from other living things. The argument is that it had to have happened because life abounds. This is the logical flaw of begging the question; that conclusion has to be based on the assumption that God does not exist, and thus, He could not have created life. No one can argue that if you assume God out of the argument from the outset that evolution is not the next-best theory; but we are not willing to be that close-minded. Why exclude the possibility of a Creator?
But for a moment let us stipulate that some weird combination of circumstances did occur that created life. There is still a problem for the evolutionist. The characteristic of consciousness does not exist in the lowest forms of life (e.g., mold). At some point this crud would have to acquire a sufficient degree of intelligence to be able to perceive that it existed, a characteristic that we call consciousness. How could such evolve from nothing other than natural selection? There is a major scientific/medical lack of understanding of consciousness and the connection between brain waves and our self-awareness. Again the only explanation for the evolutionists is that it had to have evolved because it currently exists. This circular argument begs the question once again, and again the existence of a Creator whose knowledge of such things is infinitely above ours is much a more reasonable explanation.
4. Complex Interdependent Components Cannot Evolve Incrementally
Darwin confessed that stating that natural selection could account for the evolution of the eye with all of its interdependent parts had to be considered “absurd in the highest degree.” There are many components of higher level living organisms that are much more complex than the most sophisticated automobile. We can all understand that a car can hardly be considered as functional unless all of its essential components function to some rudimentary degree. If we were to remove the spark plugs, for example it would become totally disabled. Similarly with the carburetor. There are many human organs that have dozens of interdependent components such as this, and they will not function at all unless every component is present and totally operational. Natural selection could not possibly take advantage of the development of some of these components unless they were all perfectly in place and functional. The presence of some and not others could even cause the organism to deteriorate.
Since there is no way that such components can evolve one at a time, the evolutionist has to claim that all of these components came about simultaneously through a process of mutation (if such can be called a process). If ten components are essential to the functioning of a given organ, for example, it would do no good, natural-selection-wise, for nine of them to somehow evolve, since the only advantage the organism could possibly have would be for all ten of them to function simultaneously.
“A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular … an immune system” … and many others. If a baby should be unlucky enough to be born without one of these, s/he will not likely survive. Yet we are expected to believe that such an organism did exists on the way to getting everything working together perfectly. While this is considering the entire organism, we must realize that there are any number of internal organs with such components that are all-or-nothing in their functionality. The protein motors that enable human movement are examples of organs that have a large number of interacting components the absence of any one of which will prevent the organ from being functional. Their coming into existence without their partial composition serving any function defies natural selection as being the cause for their evolution.
Unlike species cannot mate because the DNA in the male sperm must be comparable to that of the female egg for the necessary match to take place. The chromosomes and genes from the sperm have to combine with the mother's contribution. For these to join together they have to be the same number of chromosomes and contain the same number of genes. There are exceptional examples, but they are exceptions. Let us suppose that a new species is formed in a particular male by some mutation event. This could explain the evolution of a new species if it were not for the fact that the identical mutation would have to occur in the female in order for them to mate and have offspring, which is essential to the propagation of the new species. Timing and co-location is crucial – if this should happen to a male and female separated in either time or distance, successful mating could not occur.
“There is no evidence anywhere of the evolution of such [interdependent - dbb] systems. More than that, not even any hypothetical process can be thought of to explain how something like the brain and the digestive system could have evolved bit by bit over time!”
5. Missing Intermediate Links Defy Macroevolution
The term “after its kind” occurs ten times in Genesis 1:11-25. Was the writer lucky, was he a genetic scientist, or is that just the way God set things up? Macroevolution claims that new “kinds” arise very slowly and incrementally over a long period of time, or they could arise instantaneously by mutation. We will use the Bible word “kind” since microevolution might produce variations that some might call a different species, and we do not want to get into arguing semantics. We saw in the section above how unlikely it would be to produce a new kind with a different number of chromosomes or genes by concurrent identical mutations in the male and female, but for a moment let us entertain the possibility.
In that case we would expect to find large variations of intermediate kinds that have the characteristics of both the source and destination kinds that can be seen today. None have actually been found in the fossil record, and the great hype that follows when someone claims to have found just one attests to how few and far between these alleged “finds” are.
But let’s take it one step further. If an intermediate kind had to exist for a long period of time in order to generate the next step on the evolution chain, why would there not be survivors today? What active force came along and killed all remnants of these intermediate life forms?, and why would it behave in this way? Why did all of these intermediate kinds not only die out, but all traces of them have vanished off of the face of the earth as far as the fossil record is concerned. Their inability to compete with the superior life forms is far from an adequate explanation in that the inferior kinds from which they allegedly evolved have indeed survived.
6. Extreme Mutations Cannot Create Improvements
This adjective extreme creates the inference that small mutations do cause improvement. This is the basis of microevolution, which we stated above can produce beneficial effects through the process of natural selection. An excellent example that is given is the Peppered Moths event in 1848 in Manchester, England, where soot turned the trees black, and those moths that remained predominantly white were quickly consumed by birds. Those that had a genetic makeup that would disguise them survived and their interbreeding over a relatively short period of time essentially changed the entire population of moths from peppered white to black. The first moths to “not be so white” would be that way due to some slight mutation in its DNA and genetic makeup that would result in the different coloration. The snow-shoe rabbit is another great example where natural selection has not only changed coloration but also developed back legs that are able to stay on top of the snow in northern climates. But the moth is still a moth and the rabbit is still a rabbit.
This is microevolution, and it should be recognized as a natural method created by God to enable all living beings to cope with changes in their environment. But not all microevolution is positive. For example, cancer is caused by cells somehow turning off the gene that causes them to die at the same time as their reproduction is increased. See Cancer and Genetics.
Most evolutionists will admit that the minor changes of microevolution, which often cycle back to the original state, cannot account for the significant changes that would be required to create a new kind. For this they fall back on what we are calling extreme mutations.
“Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on genetic material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW genetic material. Mutations are random changes in the genetic makeup of organisms. Evolutionists say that mutations supply the new genes needed for evolution to proceed.” But this has never been observed in nature or in the laboratory. The fruit fly mutation is still a fruit fly. Something very strange would have to occur for mutations that usually cause deformities and cancer to result in a new species. And as we have discussed above, for this species to reproduce, this same mutation would have to occur simultaneously in the male and the female or the combining of their DNA in the mating process would not be successful.
7. Events Do Not Happen Just Because They Are Possible
There is an over-riding tenet in evolution theory that says that if it is at all possible for something to happen, sooner or later it will. We invite you to concoct some very unlikely scenario and apply this premise to it. “Surely, if it is possible then sooner or later it is bound to occur,” right? This is the reason that the evolution of life on earth had to have started about 4 billion years ago. If evolution of life were so inevitable, one would wonder why, after the trillions of years that the universe has been in existence, a wide variety of life forms do not exist in countless places in this universe. For example, why would life have to be carbon based? Why could it not be sulfur-based, or based on any other element?
But back to the subject. It is possible that a tornado could go through a slum area of a city and when everything settled down all of the debris would be assembled into a neat subdivision with world-class carpentry and masonry. Since this is possible, do you believe that it will happen at some time in the future? Of course not. Well then, why would you believe that it has happened in the past? In fact, given the independent nature of the various houses, a 20 block subdivision would be far less complicated than a human body. We discuss the complexities of the human organism in another article, and once you read that article you will see that the human body is far more complex than such a subdivision.
We could apply probability theory to the problem to determine that such has a probability so small that this page would not be able to contain all of the zeros after the decimal point. But the evolutionist will push that aside because, since, "given enough time it has to happen." The idea that if something is possible then given enough time, it has to happen, is a driving force of macroevolution theory. The far more reasonable position is that there are some low-probably events that will not occur regardless of how much time they are given. Prove it to yourself -- try to flip a coin heads 10 times in a row, an event that has a probability of about 1 in 1000 (0.001), which is an extremely large probability compared to many of the events that must occur for macroevolution to be a reality.
Conclusion
In this article we have stayed away from things that are scientifically complex, but rather appeal to common sense. When confronted with all of the jargon and other complexities of science, many will just give up and agree with what the majority of scientists state. And, for the most part, there is little harm in that. But when our eternal destiny is in the balance, it would be good for us to realize that the same Creator who made us gave us our brain and our reasoning powers – what we call common sense, which is independent of our educational process. As such, God expects us to use it along with the Bible to determine what is the right and wrong of most matters. This is not a difficult process if we put aside what other people (even scientists) believe and just look at the simple facts. The primary assumption of evolution is that God does not exist, or, if He does, He did not take part in Creation. We can accept no such pre-assumptions, realizing not only could God exists, but that He is the most reasonable explanation not only for the creation, but for the mechanisms of natural selection that sustain our lives and our environment.
There is nothing more important that God's conditions of salvation.
Return to Why I Believe the Bible