The theory of evolution is commonly taught among schools and universities as scientific fact, yet its very nature is an unprovable belief system which is not scientific. True science can be tested and proven by experimental observation and replication. However, though tremendous efforts have been attempted to produce “proof” for evolution, no genuine evidence has been produced.
Sections
- Evolutionists cannot find transitional forms
- Evolution defies the law of entropy
- Observable “evolution” is only a variation in type, not a change in kind
- Mutations do not create new life
- Evolution is Religion – Not Science
Evolutionists cannot find transitional forms
If evolution really occurred, the fossil record should reveal countless transitions from one species evolving to another kind. However, though billions of fossils have been unearthed, not one genuine transitional form in the process of evolving has ever been discovered.
Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, palaeontologists have found many gaps but no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.
Evolutionists cannot explain how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its “hard parts” on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate — that is, the first fish– with its hard parts all on the inside.
Many evolutionists use similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms to “prove” evolution is a scientific fact. They frequently argue that if two organisms have similar DNA structures, they must have a common ancestor.
The best-known example of similarities in DNA is that of the human and chimpanzee, since their DNA is approximately 90% in common and both have many physiological resemblances.
However, similarity in DNA is no proof that man is a more highly evolved species of the chimpanzee. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense. The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA produces very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc.
The conclusion of the evidence is based entirely on perspective, not provable science. Similarities in DNA are better evidence of a “common Designer” than a “common ancestor.” It is logical that an Intelligent Creator would use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms.
Evolution defies the law of entropy
Evolution is unscientific because it defies a fundamental law of nature: the law of entropy. The law of increasing entropy, also known as the second law of thermodynamics, is that all things decline from a state of order to disorder. This universal law is plainly observable in everyday life.
For example, a car requires intelligent and precise construction and maintenance in order for the engine to work. However, the car will rust and disintegrate into disrepair if not maintained.
Evolution requires that one species will eventually evolve into a higher species with new and greater information, (such as “modern man” evolving from the primeval caveman). However, the law of entropy demonstrates that things do not evolve into something better if left on its own. All things age, deteriorate and disintegrate without equal or greater intelligent maintenance from an external source.
Observable “evolution” is only a variation in type, not a change in kind
Evolution is unscientific because it defies a fundamental law of nature: the law of entropy. The law of increasing entropy, also known as the second law of thermodynamics, is that all things decline from a state of order to disorder. This universal law is plainly observable in everyday life.
For example, a car requires intelligent and precise construction and maintenance in order for the engine to work. However, the car will rust and disintegrate into disrepair if not maintained.
Evolution requires that one species will eventually evolve into a higher species with new and greater information, (such as “modern man” evolving from the primeval caveman). However, the law of entropy demonstrates that things do not evolve into something better if left on its own. All things age, deteriorate and disintegrate without equal or greater intelligent maintenance from an external source.
Mutations do not create new life
Some mutations have supposed benefits, such as seedless grapes, hairless dogs, etc. Yet though these mutations might be beneficial to humans, it has no benefit to the organism itself (eg. the grape cannot reproduce without seeds). Even “beneficial” mutations are harmful to the organism if it is left in its own environment, without man’s special care. So-called “favourable” mutations such as sickle-cell anaemia can cause resistance to malaria; but if left in its own environment, the sickle-cell anaemia will cause plenty of problems of its own, and is detrimental to long-term survival.
Mutations are more commonly harmful than beneficial. Mutations are usually the result of radiation or replication errors, and tend to make the carrier weaker, more disease-prone, and more dependent upon the care of others for survival. Cancer, cystic fibrosis, haemophilia, and color-blindness are all caused by mutational errors, even so much as one missing chromosome.
Though evolutionists point to mutations as examples of observable “evolutionary process”, these mutations are better support of the law of entropy rather than macroevolution. Regardless, even if mutations are neutral, they are only changes in genes that already exist. Mutations have never created new genes – which would be required in order for evolution to take place.
(For detailed information on mutations, read article by Dr. Gary Parker https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/mutations/ )
Evolution is Religion – Not Science
The following article is an excerpt written by Dr. Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. References and full detail can be obtained from the following link: http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.
Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.
Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.
The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?
The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and “new age” evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.
The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism — the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.
Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.
Of course we can’t prove that there isn’t a God.
Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.
The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:
Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.
A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
Another way of saying “religion” is “worldview,” the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.
Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.
They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn’t make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:
We cannot identify ancestors or “missing links,” and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.
A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:
And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal — without demonstration — to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.
Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.
As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.
Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists’ tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more.
(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.
Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not “minimal.” It is nonexistent!
The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God, I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the “liberal” movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).
As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a “religion without revelation” and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:
Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.
Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change “our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern.” Then he went on to say that: “The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought.” Therefore, he concluded that “we must construct something to take its place.”
That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.
In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.
REFERENCES
Dr. Henry M. Morris, Ph.D – http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
Dr. Gary Parker – https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/mutations/
Dr. Georgia Purdom – https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/are-there-beneficial-mutations/