 |
 A
lot of people do still believe in this theory. However, thankfully, as
we move along in time and our scientific knowledge increases, we are
seeing the theory of evolution proved wrong more and more each
day.
Some Issues To
Consider: This article is intended to inspire thought about whether
or not evolution is really a viable theory to believe in or not.
Some scientists have actually left the evolution platform saying that it
is much easier to believe in Creation than it is to believe in
evolution. Below are only a few considerations regarding the
theory of evolution.
1.Something from nothing?
The "Big Bang", the most widely
accepted theory of the beginning of the universe, states that everything
developed from a small dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation
which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. Where did this
energy/matter come from? How reasonable is it to assume it came into
being from nothing? And even if it
did come into being, what would cause it to explode?
We know from common experience that explosions are
destructive and lead to disorder.
How reasonable is it to assume that a "big
bang" explosion produced the opposite effect -
increasing "information", order and
the formation of useful structures, such as stars and
planets, and eventually people?
2.Physical laws an accident?
We know the universe is governed by several
fundamental physical laws, such as
electromagnetic forces, gravity, conservation
of mass and energy, etc. The activities of our
universe depend upon these principles like a
computer program depends upon the existence
of computer hardware with an instruction set.
How reasonable is it to say that these great
controlling principles developed by accident?
3.Order from disorder?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the
most verified law of science. It states that
systems become more disordered over time,
unless energy is supplied and directed to create
order. Evolutionists says that the opposite has
taken place - that order increased over time,
without any directed energy. How can this be?
ASIDE: Evolutionists
commonly object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated
systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a
closed system (it gets lots of raw energy from the
Sun, for example). However, all systems,
whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For
example, living organisms are open systems but
they all decay and die. Also, the universe in
total is a closed system. To say that the chaos
of the big bang has transformed itself into the
human brain with its 120 trillion connections
is a clear violation of the Second Law.
We should also point out that the availability of raw
energy to a system is a necessary but far
from sufficient condition for a local decrease
in entropy to occur. Certainly the application of a
blow torch to bicycle parts will not result in
a bicycle being assembled - only the careful
application of directed energy will, such as
from the hands of a person following a plan. The
presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve
the evolutionist's problem of how
increasing order could occur on the Earth,
contrary to the Second Law.
4.Information from Randomness?
Information theory states that
"information" never arises out of randomness or chance events.
Our human experience verifies this every day.
How can the origin of the tremendous increase
in information from simple organisms up to man
be accounted for? Information is always
introduced from the outside. It is impossible
for natural processes to produce their own actual
information, or meaning, which is what
evolutionists claim has happened. Random typing might
produce the string "dog", but it only
means something to an intelligent observer who has
applied a definition to this sequence of
letters. The generation of information always requires
intelligence, yet evolution claims that no
intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a
human being whose many systems contain vast
amounts of information.
5.Life from dead chemicals?
Evolutionists claim that life formed from
non-life (dead chemicals), so-called "abiogenesis",
even though it is a biological law
("biogenesis") that life only comes from life. The probability
of the simplest imaginable replicating system
forming by itself from non-living chemicals has
been calculated to be so very small as to be
essentially zero - much less than one chance in
the number of electron-sized particles that
could fit in the entire visible universe! Given these
odds, is it reasonable to believe that life
formed itself?
6.Complex DNA and RNA by chance?
The continued existence (the reproduction) of a
cell requires both DNA (the "plan") and RNA
(the "copy mechanism"), both of which
are tremendously complex. How reasonable is it to
believe that these two co-dependent necessities
came into existence by chance at exactly the
same time?
7.Life is complex.
We know and appreciate the tremendous amount of
intelligent design and planning that went
into landing a man on the moon. Yet the
complexity of this task pales in comparison to the
complexity of even the simplest life form. How
reasonable is it to believe that purely natural
processes, with no designer, no intelligence,
and no plan, produced a human being.
8.Where are the transitional fossils?
If evolution has taken place our museums should
be overflowing with the skeletons of
countless transitional forms. Yet after over
one hundred years of intense searching only a small
number of transitional candidates are touted as
proof of evolution. If evolution has really taken
place, where are the transitional forms? And
why does the fossil record actually show all
species first appearing fully formed, with most
nearly identical to current instances of the
species?
ASIDE: Most of the
examples touted by evolutionists concentrate on just one feature of the
anatomy, like a particular bone or the skull. A
true transitional fossil should be intermediate in
many if not all aspects. The next time someone
shows you how this bone changed over time,
ask them about the rest of the creature too!
Many evolutionists
still like to believe in the "scarcity" of the fossil record.
Yet simple statistics
will show that given you have found a number of
fossil instances of a creature, the chances
that you have missed every one of its imagined
predecessors is very small. Consider the
trilobites for example. These fossils are so
common you can buy one for under $20, yet no
fossils of a predecessor have been found!.
9.Could an intermediate even survive?
Evolution requires the transition from one kind
to another to be gradual. And don't forget that
"natural selection" is supposed to
retain those individuals which have developed an advantage
of some sort. How could an animal intermediate
between one kind and another even survive
(and why would it ever be selected for), when
it would not be well-suited to either its old
environment or its new environment? Can you
even imagine a possible sequence of small
changes which takes a creature from one kind to
another, all the while keeping it not only
alive, but improved?
ASIDE: Certainly a
"light-sensitive spot" is better than no vision at all. But
why would such a
spot even develop? (evolutionists like to take
this for granted). And even if it did develop, to
believe that mutations of such a spot
eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of
the human eye strains all common sense and
experience.
10.Reproduction without reproduction?
A main tenet of evolution is the idea that
things develop by an (unguided) series of small
changes, caused by mutations, which are
"selected" for, keeping the "better" changes"
over a
very long period of time. How could the ability
to reproduce evolve, without the ability to
reproduce? Can you even imagine a theoretical
scenario which would allow this to happen?
And why would evolution produce two sexes, many
times over? Asexual reproduction would
seem to be more likely and efficient!
ASIDE: To relegate the
question of reproduction to "abiogenesis" does NOT address the
problem. To assume existing, reproducing life
for the principles of evolution to work on is a
HUGE assumption which is seldom focused on in
popular discussions.
11.Plants without photosynthesis?
The process of photosynthesis in plants is very
complex. How could the first plant survive
unless it already possessed this remarkable
capability?
12.How do you explain symbiotic relationships?
There are many examples of plants and animals
which have a "symbiotic" relationship (they
need each other to survive). How can evolution
explain this?
13.It's no good unless it's complete.
We know from everyday experience that an item
is not generally useful until it is complete,
whether it be a car, a cake, or a computer
program. Why would natural selection start to
make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or anything
else) when this item would not benefit the
animal until it was completed?
ASIDE: Note that even
a "light-sensitive spot" or the simplest version of any
feature is far
from a "one-jump" change that is
trivial to produce.
14.Explain metamorphosis!
How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of
the butterfly? Once the caterpillar evolves
into the "mass of jelly" (out of
which the butterfly comes), wouldn't it appear to be "stuck"?
15.It should be easy to show evolution.
If evolution is the grand mechanism that has
produced all natural things from a simple gas,
surely this mechanism must be easily seen. It
should be possible to prove its existence in a
matter of weeks or days, if not hours. Yet
scientists have been bombarding countless
generations of fruit flies with radiation for
several decades in order to show evolution in action
and still have only produced ... more
(deformed) fruit flies. How reasonable is it to believe that
evolution is a fact when even the simplest of
experiments has not been able to document it?
ASIDE: The artificial
creation of a new species is far too small of a change to prove that
true
"macro-evolution" is possible. A
higher-order change, where the information content of the
organism has been increased should be showable
and is not. Developing a new species
changes the existing information, but does not
add new information, such as would be needed
for a new organ, for example.
16.Complex things require intelligent design folks!
People are intelligent. If a team of engineers
were to one day design a robot which could
cross all types of terrain, could dig large
holes, could carry several times its weight, found its
own energy sources, could make more robots like
itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we
would marvel at this achievement. All of our
life's experiences lead us to know that such a
robot could never come about by accident, or
assemble itself by chance, even if all of the
parts were available laying next to each other.
And we are certain beyond doubt that a
canister of hydrogen gas, no matter how long we
left it there or what type of raw energy we
might apply to it, would never result in such a
robot being produced. But we already have
such a "robot" - it is called an
"ant", and we squash them because they are "nothing"
compared to people. And God made them, and he
made us. Can there be any other
explanation?
|
