Page last edited on 12 March, 2003
Do You Believe Evolution is True ?
[ source Unknown ]
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.
- 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?
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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
- 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
- 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!.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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?
- 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
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.
- 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"?
- 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.
- 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, not 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?
[ Up ]