Monday, March 7, 2016

Questioning Evolution

            Evolution is not a perfect theory, for evolutionists are yet to answer the most fundamental questions.

            The term “Evolution” is an umbrella term to encompass three very diverse aspects:1

            1. Small-scale changes within a species or genepool a.k.a. microevolution (e.g. evolution of new varieties of dogs).

            2. All organisms have descended from a single common ancestor a.k.a. Universal Common Descent / Macroevolution.

            3. Unguided process of natural selection acting upon random mutation as the primary mechanism of driving the evolution of life a.k.a. Neo-Darwinism / Macroevolution.

            Most creationists affirm microevolution. The macroevolution divides the population.        

            The public perception is dreadfully wrong in understanding evolution and creation. The general public perceives evolution to be highly scientific and thinks that the entire scientific community endorses the veracity of evolution.

            The average man or woman considers creation to be thoroughly unscientific. They think that only the mindless theists, who, by definition, [apparently] hate science, consider creation to be factual. This is so wrong!

            The entire scientific community does not endorse Darwinian evolution. “Dissent from Darwin” website reveals the growing number of scientists disputing the Darwinian evolution.

            Consider the words of a few scientists who dispute Neo-Darwinism: 2

            “New mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.” (Evolutionary biologist late Lynn Margulis - member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences)

            “[m]utations have a very limited ‘constructive capacity’” because “[n]o matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.” (Past president of the French Academy of Sciences, Pierre-Paul Grasse)

            “There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” (Biochemist Franklin Harold)

            “the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false.” (Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel)

            Among the scientific community, renowned evolutionary biologists who have pronounced the death of Neo-Darwinism are Francisco Ayala and the late Lyn Margulis of the “Attenburg 16” (group of evolutionary biologists who met at Attenburg, Austria in 2008 to explore the mechanisms behind evolution).

            The scientific community is divided over evolution because evolution is yet to answer certain fundamental questions!

Origin Of Matter: Where Did Matter Come From?

            Something could not have come from nothing. Matter could not have created itself, for to create itself matter should have been in existence (to create) and at the same time matter should not be in existence (to be created). This is a contradiction. Moreover, if energy is required to create matter, where did the original energy come from?

            If we consider the universe as a case in point, one argument that could be posited is that of an eternal universe – the universe always existed. But the 2nd law of thermodynamics (flow of thermal energy) contradicts this notion. Our universe is constantly losing energy.

            Our universe could not have been infinitely old, since it would have lost all energy by now. Evolutionists believe that there is no outside source for energy, for they do not believe in God. If evolution is factual, our universe would have ceased to exist. Thankfully, our universe exists and evolution remains a theory.

            Our universe still has usable energy. This indicates that it is not infinitely old; rather it had a beginning, during which it was wound up with energy needed for sustenance. 

            Cosmologist Sean Carroll proposed a mathematical model for an eternal universe (with an infinite past). But in a physical world it is impossible to count down an infinite number of years, which is why mathematician George Ellis and physicist Joe Silk, in an article in Nature, ruled out infinity, since it occurs nowhere in the universe.3

Life From Nonlife: How Did The First Life Originate?

            Secular minds do not recognize God, but life is in existence. So they have to explain how life came into being. They then posit a solution that life must have originated via a natural, spontaneous event.

            The most basic aspect of scientific test is observation. Thus far, science has not offered an experiment proving origin of life from spontaneous natural processes. On the contrary, we constantly observe that life comes from life (biogenesis), which is a scientific law.

            Life is a fascinatingly complicated and a sophisticated operating system. All that science has managed to conjure up until now is creative experiments proposing the formation of strangely structured rings of amino acids and a few organic molecules. But life is not a mere collection of a few organic molecules. Science has not managed to come close to explaining origin of life. Moreover, developments in genetics, molecular biology, and biochemistry et al. push life outside the reach of natural and spontaneous processes.

            What would happen if scientists do manage to prove that life could indeed originate from non-life? Should evolution then be unanimously believed? Would God then be irrelevant and dumped into the dungeons of darkness?

            No! Not by any chance!

            Dr. Kevin Anderson, Director of the Van Andel Creation Research Center, debunks this claim. 4 If scientists do happen to prove life’s origin in a laboratory from elemental components through a carefully controlled and designed process, their accomplishment will use not only preexisting components, but knowledge gained over decades of scientific research and understanding. This is not a creation of life, but a semi-synthetic reassembly of life.

            This is not a spontaneous creation of life, but this creation demonstrates the extensive amount of knowledge required to create life. This is an act of plagiarizing the life systems that already exists albeit by discrediting the author of life, God.  

Information Of Life: Where Did The Information To Life Come From?

            Life, in essence, is the information that operates all parts of an organism for metabolism, growth, reproduction and adaption to environment. Life requires vast amount of intangible information stored in the DNA.

            Scientists still endeavor to answer the question, “where did the information to life come from?” Such information can only come from pre-existing higher source of information.

            Information is an intangible nonmaterial entity, separate from mass and energy, without material or physical existence. Other examples of such nonmaterial entities are mathematics, logic, thoughts, emotion, consciousness etc.

            Interestingly, the most useful aspects of our universe are nonmaterial entities. This information is comparable to an operating system of a computer or a mobile device. This intangible operating system offers life to the device.

            Dr. Werner Gitt, specialist in information theory, proved that only nonmaterial entities can create new information. 5 Evolution, by definition, is a materialistic system predicated on unguided random processes. So evolutionists ought to explain how a materialistic system adds nonmaterial information to the DNA so to effect changes from one species to another and how the first cell acquired information to activate its life. 

Irreducible Complexity: Complex Organs That Cannot Be Reduced In Complexity

            The defining test of evolution, as Charles Darwin emphasized, is that complex organs evolve through small evolutionary steps. Any complex organ could have only become complex through small steps of evolution.

            But Darwin honestly emphasized the innate risk in evolution, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

            Dr. Michael Behe in his exemplary work, “Darwin’s Black Box,” broke down the Darwinian evolution by positing “Irreducible Complexity” through the extremely complex architecture of the bacteria E.Coli’s flagellar system. Dr. Behe argued that the flagellar system could not have evolved, “An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional”.6

            Presence of complex organs continues to be evolution’s achilles heel. Although evolutionists continue to suggest theories about the possible origin of any complex organ, scientists from the opposing camp have found flaws in their theories. These recent refutations are a case in point. 7

            Desperate for answers, evolutionists have even redefined Darwinian evolution by appealing to “neutral evolution” (changes in DNA not resulting in a change in biological function). But neutral evolution is only possible under impossible odds, for it’s a matter of pure luck.8

            Someone said this, the chance of evolution actually happening is about as likely as a blindfolded person throwing a pebble into outer space and knocking down a satellite that then crashes onto a target on the back of a truck speeding down the highway. Even with billions of years, that’s not going to happen.


Cited websites were last accessed on 7th March 2016.


2 Ibid.



5 Ibid.

6 Darwin’s Black Box, 1996, p. 39



No comments: