Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
If so, then provide an answer to the following questions. "Evolution" in
this context is the idea that natural, undirected processes are sufficient
to account for the existence of all natural things.
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?
Go to Creation Science home page