Did you know that evolution is not an indisputable scientific fact?
Here’s some of the powerful scientific evidence against evolution.
EVIDENCE 1: The universe could NOT have created itself nor has it always existed
a. The universe could NOT have created itself
In his latest book, misleadingly entitled The Grand Design, Steven Hawking makes the adventurous claim that ?because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.? Think about that.
Dr. John Lennox? is Professor in Mathematics at Oxford University. He acknowledges that Hawking is a brilliant theoretical physicist but responds to Hawking?s assertion that ?the universe can and will create itself from nothing? with; ?that sounds to me like something out of Alice in Wonderland … it?s not science!?11
Lennox explains by saying; “If I say ?X creates X,? I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent.”12? Or, put simply; ?From nothing, nothing comes!? or ?No-thing cannot do anything!?13
Dr. Lennox rightly concludes; “What this all goes to show is that?nonsense remains nonsense,?even?when?talked?by world-famous?scientists”.14
The universe cannot have created itself!
b. The universe could NOT have always existed
The idea that the universe has always been in existence has been thoroughly rejected on scientific grounds. The Laws of Thermodynamics show the universe must have had a beginning.
The First Law of Thermodynamics says that there is only a finite amount of energy. The Second Law says that the amount of available energy is continually decreasing. If the universe had existed forever, all the available existing energy would have already been used up. So the universe had a beginning, a reality that is now almost universally accepted in science.
One logical and scientific explanation for the existence of the universe is that it was created by an outside intelligence.
EVIDENCE 2:? The Second Law of Thermodynamics says No!
The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that a system will always go from order to disorder, unless there is an outside influence to organize it.
World-renowned evolutionist Isaac Asimov said of the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!'” Yes, we can see the second law at work all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again quite easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself – and that is what the second law is all about.”1
As Isaac Asimov says, everything becomes ‘a mess … deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself’. This is self-evident and observable everywhere we look, in every situation.
Evolution demands that things become much more organized and complex when left to themselves! (a quadrillion times more complex in some cases, like the human brain.) This is the very heart of the evolutionary idea yet it’s in complete opposition to one of most firmly established laws of science.
Some people raise the technicality that the earth is an open system and therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply. Simply pouring in energy (sunlight) into the earth does not override the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As shown in Isaac Asimov’s quote above, the Second Law still applies on earth.
Consider the brilliant scientist Lord Kelvin who actually formulated the Second Law of Thermodynamics. He said, “Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us.? And, … the atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words.” 9
As Dr John Ross of Harvard University rightly states:”? there are no known violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ?”7
Evolution has no plan or outside intelligence yet requires massive increases in complexity. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics this can never take place!
EVIDENCE 3.? Living Things Never Arise from Non-living Things
To produce a living thing you must start with a living thing.
Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed. Indeed, the basis of natural selection, the very mechanism of evolution, requires reproducing organisms to start with. The idea of evolution relies on reproduction. Well, how did the first reproducing cell ever come about?? We may call them simple cells but there’s nothing simple about them. Even though microscopic, they are biochemically sophisticated masterpieces!? Complexity again.
A Biology textbook puts it like this: “As we have seen, the life of every organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from nonliving matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the principal of Biogenesis.” 8
So when it comes to real science, things we can actually establish by observation and experiment, life always comes from life!? This is another self-evident truth. However, yet again, Evolution demands that life came from nonliving matter. Of course it is unable to prove this. Are you starting to notice a pattern here?? Just saying something repeatedly doesn’t make it true!
EVIDENCE 4: Complex Systems do not evolve ‘bit by bit’
Darwin himself acknowledges the logical absurdity of a complex organ like the eye being formed using the natural processes he was suggesting in his theory.
Darwin said: “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” 3
No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation. It is an intricate, complex and precision organ, supremely better optically than anything man has been able to make. Yet it can only function if everything is in precisely in the right alignment. Evolution demands that this amazing organ developed through thousands of interim stages, a long progression of minute changes, all of which are supposed to have had adaptive value to the organism along the way. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have been favored by natural selection. But hang on a minute. The eye wouldn’t work at all for most if not all of those stages, in fact it would be an absolute nuisance and a waste of energy. So it really is inconceivable that the eye could somehow have randomly evolved its way through a maze of useless intermediate forms to become what it is today, a marvel of creation, along with the myriad of other sophisticated organs found in a wide array of animals.
A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular and an immune system. For the baby to survive and live, each system requires all the other systems to be functioning. Therefore all these systems must be in operation at the same time and could not have evolved slowly and independently over millions of years.
Think of the amazing intricacy of the male reproductive system coming about by time, chance and random mutation. Remember that it would also have to be fully functional all along the evolutionary timeline so that reproduction could continue. Also, this supposed progression would be pointless unless the female reproductive system had randomly evolved in perfect sync to compliment the developing male system so they both worked in harmony over the millions of years of alleged evolutionary refinement!?? Nevertheless, Evolution demands that all this has taken place over a long series of chance, unguided random changes. Of course, this same logic applies to all the other 8.7 million different species on earth as well !? You really do need enormous faith to believe in evolution.
There is no evidence anywhere of the evolution of such systems. More than that, not even any hypothetical process can be thought of to explain how something as incredibly complex and intricate as the human brain with its literal quadrillion synapses could have evolved bit by bit over time.
EVIDENCE 5:?? The Missing Links are Still Missing
If evolution was true, there should be large numbers of intermediate fossil organisms present in the fossil record.? Despite over a hundred years and millions of dollars worth of intensive world-wide research into the fossil record, the ‘missing links’ are still well and truly ‘missing’. This should not be a surprise as we wouldn’t expect to find evidence for something that never happened.
Famous evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould reluctantly concede this when they say, “The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not based on the evidence of fossils.” 2
Recent find: ‘neanderthal’ skeleton amazingly similar to ‘modern’ humans.
What does the fossil record teach us about evolution?
Who’s who & what’s what in the world of “missing” links?
Is there fossil evidence of ‘missing links’ between humans and apes?
Did ancient humans live millions of years ago?
EVIDENCE 6: Mutations are contrary to Evolution
We do not have a problem with natural selection but it’s not the same as evolution. Natural selection alone (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.
Geneticists have studied mutation. For over 1500 generations, fruit flies have been subjected to radiation and chemicals4 causing mutations in the flies. If you take a human generation to be 25 years, this is equal to around 37 500 years (1500 x 25) in human terms. What happened to these mutated flies over this time? Firstly, they were still flies and had not evolved into anything else! Secondly the flies as a population were worse off with many dying, having curly wings or stubby wings.
Mutations are an example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (when things are left to themselves they become more disordered over time). It is amazing that evolutionists would put forward mutations as the mechanism by which evolution could somehow take place!
A person with one sickle-cell anaemia gene (a mutation) and malaria has more chance of surviving malaria than a person without the mutated gene. Evolutionists point to this as evolution in action. Read more on malaria / sickle-cell anaemia
Evolution (things becoming more ordered) and mutations (things becoming more disordered) are processes going in opposite directions! Mutations are not a friend of evolution but an enemy that ultimately cuts the theory down and destroys it!
EVIDENCE 7: Probability laws are also contrary to Evolution
Evolutionists such as Sir Fred Hoyle concede this when they say “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (time and chance) is comparable with the chance that ‘a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.'”5
In a desperate attempt to override the very powerful argument that life could never arise by chance, Richard Dawkins proposed that ?If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against ??10
A billion to one is only 1 in 10 to the 9th power. However, the probability of even one single protein molecule consisting of 200 amino acids arising spontaneously by chance is 1 in 10 raised to power of 260. This is calculated by raising 20 (the number of different types amino acids available) to the power of 200 (the number of amino acids in the protein chain). Even if the whole universe was packed with amino acids combining frantically for billions of years, it would not produce even one such protein molecule, let alone produce a living cell.
Read our answer to the question:?“Does evolution of life rely on anything more than just ?sheer higgledy-piggledy luck??”
Let’s now put this in its larger context.? Proteins are ‘made’ by genes in the cell.
* The average human gene consists of 3000 bases, but sizes vary greatly, with the largest known human gene being dystrophin at 2.4 million bases.
* The total number of human genes is estimated at 30,000.
* The human genome has some 3 billion DNA base pairs. Except for mature red blood cells, all human cells contain a complete genome!
* The constellation of all proteins in a cell is called its proteome. Unlike the relatively unchanging genome, the dynamic proteome changes from minute to minute in response to tens of thousands of intra- and extracellular environmental signals. A protein?s chemistry and behavior are specified by the gene sequence and by the number and identities of other proteins made in the same cell at the same time and with which it associates and reacts.
* Finally, It is estimated that the human body may contain over two million different proteins, each with a unique function.
There is no chance that the human body could have come about by chance!
THE LINK BETWEEN MODERN SCIENCE AND BELIEF IN A CREATOR
C.S. Lewis who was a novelist, poet and academic?showed the very strong connection between the development of modern scientific thought and the belief the scientists held in a Creator (Lawgiver) when he said;. ?Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.?14
GREAT SCIENTISTS FROM THE PAST
“Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us … the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words.” (Lord Kelvin)
“I am a Christian … I believe only and alone … in the service of Jesus Christ … In Him is all refuge, all solace.” (Johannes Kepler)
“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Science brings men nearer to God.” (Louis Pasteur). Pasteur strongly opposed Darwin’s theory of evolution because he felt it did not conform to the scientific evidence.
Robert Boyle believed in Jesus Christ’s “Passion, His death, His resurrection and ascension, and all of those wonderful works which He did during His stay upon earth, in order to confirm the belief of His being God as well as man.”
“Order is manifestly maintained in the universe ? the whole being governed by the sovereign will of God.” (James Prescott Joule)
“There are those who argue that the universe evolved out a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the human eye?” (Werhner Von Braun)
“Almighty Creator and Preserver of all things, praised be all Thou has created.” (Carl Linnaeus)
“I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.” (Sir Joseph Lister)
“Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.” “The true God is a living, intelligent and powerful being.” (Sir Isaac Newton)
Michael Faraday was careful to “Thank God, first, for all His gifts.”
Taken from the book 21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible by Ann Lamont published by Answers in Genesis, P.O. Box 6302, Acacia Ridge D.C., Queensland, 4110, Australia, 1995.
PRESENT DAY PhD SCIENTISTS
“The evidence points to an intelligent designer of the vast array of life, both living and extinct, rather than to unguided mindless evolution.” (Nancy M Darrall, Speech Therapist at the Bolton Community Health Care Trust in the UK. She holds a PhD in Botany from the University of Wales.)
“Evolutionary theories of the universe cannot counteract the above arguments for the existence of God.” (John M Cimbala, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Pennsylvania State University. John holds a PhD in Aeronautics.)
“The correspondence between the global catastrophe in the geological record and the Flood described in Genesis is much too obvious for me to conclude that these events must be one and the same.” (John R Baumgardner, Technical Staff Member in the Theoretical Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory. John holds a PhD in Geophysics and Space Physics from UCLU.)
“We have already seen that no such system could possibly appear by chance. Life in its totality must have been created in the beginning, just as God told us.” (John P Marcus, Research Officer at the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Plant Pathology, University of Queensland, Australia. John holds a PhD in Biological Chemistry from the University of Michigan.)
“The fossil record is considered to be the primary evidence for evolution, yet it does not demonstrate a complete chain of life from simple forms to complex.” (Larry Vardiman, Professor from the Department of Astro-Geophysics for Creation Research, USA. Larry holds a PhD in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University.)
“I ? have no hesitation in rejecting the evolutionary hypothesis of origins and affirming the biblical alternative that ‘in six days the Lord God created the heavens and earth and all that in them is’. (Dr Taylor is senior lecturer in Electrical Engineering at the University of Liverpool. Dr Taylor has a PhD in Electrical Engineering and has authored over 80 scientific articles.)
“I believe God provides evidence of His creative power for all to experience personally in our lives. To know the Creator does not require an advanced degree in science or theology.” (Timothy G Standish is an Associate Professor of Biology at Andrews University in the USA. Dr Standish holds a PhD in Biology and Public Policy from George Mason University, USA.)
“At the same time I found I could reject evolution and not commit intellectual suicide, I began to realise I could also accept a literal creation and still not commit intellectual suicide.” (AJ Monty White, Student Advisor, Dean of Students Office, at the University of Cardiff, UK. Dr White holds a PhD in the field of Gas Kinetics.)
“So life did not arise by natural processes, nor could the grand diversity of life have arisen through no-intelligent natural processes (evolution). Living things were created by God, as the Bible says.” (Don Batten, a research scientist for Answer in Genesis in Australia. Dr Batten holds a PhD in Plant Physiology from the University of Sydney and worked for 18 years as a research scientist with the New South Wales Department of Agriculture.)
“In the words of the well-known scientist, Robert Jastrow, ‘for the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story [of the quest for the answers about the origin of life and the universe] ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” (Jerry R Bergman, Instructor of Science at Northwest State College, Archbold, Ohio. He holds a PhD in Evaluation and Research from Wayne State University and a PhD in Human Biology from Columbia Pacific University.)
Taken from the book?In Six Days (why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation) edited by John F Ashton PhD, New Holland Publishers, 1999.
1. In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even, Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, page 6.
2. Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History, vol. LXXXVI (5), May 1977, page 14.
3. The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, J.M. Dent & Sons ltd, London, 1971, page 167.
4. Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation (Volume 1) , Dennis R. Petersen, Christian Equippers Ministries, California, 1987, page 84.
5. Hoyle on Evolution, Nature, vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p105. (Words in italics in the quote are added for clarification.)
6. Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, 6th edition, NYU, 1988, page 154.
7. Chemical and Engineering News, John Ross, July 7, 1980, p40; cited in Duane Gish, Creation Scientists Answer their Critics Institute for Creation Research, 1993.
8. Modern Biology Teacher’s Edition, Holt, Rinehardt and Winston Publishers, USA, 1977, page 19.
9. “21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible” by Ann Lamont published by Answers in Genesis, P.O. Box 6302, Acacia Ridge D.C.,?? Queensland, 4110, Australia, 1995.
10 The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, Bantam Press, London, page 138.
11 Interview with John Lennox and Ravi Zacharias
12 ?Article: ?Stephen Hawking and God? by John Lennox
13 Charlie H. Campbell, DVD ?Answers to Skeptic”
14 God and Stephen Hawking (Whose?Design?Is It?Anyway?), John C. Lennox, A Lion Book, 2011, page 32.