Our purpose is to know and love God and to bring others to know and love Him.

Is Evolution true?

Is Evolution a Plausible Idea?

It would be hard to find anything more unlikely than evolution! However there is a general ignorance of the numerous reasons from science, history, archaeology, mathematics, language, personal experience, that direct us towards the conclusion that evolution cannot be true. Some of the reasons are briefly surveyed below. The links at the end of this page tap into a wealth of extra information.

What is the chance of proteins randomly combining to form life?

We need protein for life. Odds of just ONE protein forming by chance are 1080 to 1 against. (1080 means 1 followed by 80 zeroes.) For two proteins, odds are 10160 to 1 against. But the SIMPLEST life form needs 2000 proteins! Odds: a breathtakingly huge 10160000 to 1 against. The probability of life forming randomly is further reduced by:

The end result is that there is zero chance of life happening by random accident.

Here is another way of looking at it: The odds of just ONE protein forming by chance are 1080 to 1. Suppose that in a primordial soup, amino acids combine to form trial proteins at the fastest possible rate, which is an astonishing 1047 proteins per second. How long would it take to trial every single combination so that we get the one we want? The answer is 1033 seconds, which converted to years, is: 31,700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. Investigate more about the odds of evolution actually occuring.

Is the world really young, or is it billions of years old?

Nearly all the evidence, if logically assessed, points towards a young earth, some thousands of years old. It takes a great deal of faith to believe that the evidence is speaking of an earth that is 4.5 billion years old. Evidence is known from science, as well as history, languages, archaeology, etc. Read more about the age of the Earth.

The conventionally assumed age of the Earth, about 4,500,000,000 years, is far far too young to support evolution! We saw above that random formation of just ONE desired protein from a soup of amino acids, under the most impossibly generous conditions, would take 31,700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years! This is the weight of evidence that must be ignored to choose to believe in evolution.

Is Evolution Science?

Science is the realm of things which can be observed, in the present, and are repeatable (can be put to the test by experiment). A scientific theory cannot be proven true. If many experimental results support the theory, all we can say is the theory is fairly good for now. But even one experimental result contrary to the theory is sufficient to disprove it.

If atoms-to-people evolution were a scientific hypothesis, it would be straightforward to run experiments to test it, just like any other scientific endeavour. There would be no huge fuss over it. But we can't. A dinosaur turning into a bird 150 million years ago is neither observable in real time, nor repeatable.

So, the very existence of the desperate creation-evolution debate tells us it is a matter of opinion and belief, not of science. Neither creation nor evolution are sciences, they are beliefs. This is why there is no objective definition of science that includes evolution but not creation.

And this is exactly why modern science is held by many to be 'naturalistic' - it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. God - any intelligent design - is excluded by the definition, not by the reality. God is excluded by a philosophical assumption, not by the experimental method. Because of this, scientific argument can easily degenerate to finding evidence to support the position, instead of to find the truth.

The nature of the universe can be scientifically investigated regardless of whether one believes in God directing the events. God is a God of order, not of chaos. So, in judging creation/evolution, scientific, historical and other evidence can and should be exhibited, as in a court of law, so that we as the jury can weigh the evidence and come to a decision. The measure is not proof, but 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt.'

Why is evolution so popular?

Evolution is used by the evolutionary establishment as a means of avoiding the existence of God. Darwin was not the first to promote evolution, but he did popularise it. It matters if it is true or false:

If Evolution is true, we can throw out God, God’s law and morality, as these would be imagination, and not real. Evolution is a humanistic religious belief in the guise of science that denies the Creator God. God and Evolution are simply incompatible.

If Evolution is false, then the Bible rules are mandatory for an effective life, because we are owned by God our Creator, and the Bible is the Creator’s handbook.

Can Scientists Create Life in a Test-tube?

Even a simple cell is amazingly complex and with complex requirements - far more complex than most of us would imagine. An astonishingly huge amount of intelligence would be required to make even a simple cell. Scientists cannot even bring back to life a dead cell, despite all the needed systems and chemicals being still present. It is invalid to use test-tube life, if achieved, as 'proof' that there was no intelligence required in the beginning. See a good article on this topic

What about the DNA similarity between apes and humans?

Since DNA codes for structures and biochemical molecules, similar creatures should have similar DNA, and they do. However, similarities do not require common ancestry through evolution, although it is understandable that evolutionists would explain them that way. Motor vehicles contain similar parts, but do not all come from the one factory. Genome DNA similarities, far from solving evolved family trees, lead to even bigger headaches for evolution. There are DNA similarities that are puzzling for evolution:

A comment on science and the church

In the Middle Ages (before Galileo) the church owned and ran the Universities, so church and science were interwoven. The scientific opinions of the day (eg. Earth at centre of Universe) were by default the church opinions. Today things are different - science and church are separate, and carry separate opinions.

When did the ice ages happen?

Where do they fit in if the world is only a few thousand years old?

Conventional assumptions are that the earth is billions of years old, and there have been several ice ages that lasted for periods of many thousands of years. Several ice ages are proposed in order to match up observations with radiometric dating results.

However, if there was a global flood (Noah’s flood), it would have been followed by a short ice age, maybe 300 to 400 years long. This is shown by scientific models of the climate changes that would have existed during such a flood:

There is no difficulty in explaining a variable ice age using a flood model.

Can all animals come from a few original pairs?

Creation says that the original (oldest) pair of a 'kind' had a full gene pool. Subsequent breeding can result in variations (and ultimately, species) from the original. However there is a limit to variation - dogs and wolves are separate species, but are still the dog 'kind.'

A new species is often defined as one that cannot interbreed with the parent population. Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. But it need not. One example is a new species of mosquitoes arising in the London Underground train system (the ‘Tube’) in only 100 years. The rapid change surprised evolutionists, but should delight creationists.

In contrast, evolution hopes for beneficial mutations (good accidents) to develop a dog into some other kind. However we never see this happening. We always see a limit to variations. All observed variations involve sorting and loss of genetic information - the gene pool is depleted. Variation heads in the wrong direction, namely downhill! We never see variations due to an increase in information, which evolution as an uphill process must require.

Looking at the Creation model, for example, dingoes are the oldest surviving dog species and have the largest dog gene pool. It is possible to breed larger or smaller pedigree dogs, but these are not new improved creatures. Large dogs have lost the genes (or abilities) for smallness, and vice versa for small dogs. Pedigree dogs in fact have known faults, which are genetic mistakes or losses, which have been bred into the pedigrees along with the other features.

A new dog trait - eg. long hair - is not the result of new genetic information, it is the loss of information for short hair. Sometimes, information loss can be of benefit - a longhaired dog in a cold climate survives. So do drug-resistant bacteria.

Humans have varied too. Adam and Eve, and Noah’s family, might have been of Middle East appearance. When people became dispersed over the whole world, genetic variations and losses led to the present racial differences. Clans became dispersed after Babel, and the different languages and lack of rapid transportation kept the clans separate. So, diversity became more entrenched.

For example, look at different spoken English accents across England. The Cornwall accent is distinctive, and different from Yorkshire. The low mobility of the population over hundreds of years accounts for this. In contrast, in Australia, the language is nearly the same everywhere, and the few differences are becoming less due to the effect of mass media.

Where are all the transitional fossils (the intermediate links)?

Charles Darwin was worried that the fossil record did not show what his theory predicted: ‘Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.’1 More than a hundred years later, Gould said: ‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.’2

Over a hundred years of searching has not found transitional fossils. There are only a handful of disputable examples, when they should be everywhere!

What about the Evolution TV Shows?

What about the 2002 'Evolution' TV Series aired on SBS? And the Scientific American's '15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense'? Don't they prove the case for evolution?

Not at all. Visit the AIG website at www.answersingenesis.org/sciam or www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp for a detailed item by item response to both, and read the new book Refuting Evolution 2 which presents the responses in print.

Were dinosaurs around at the same time as humans?

The Bible says that mankind and dinosaurs were both created at the same day, day 6, which were literal days (morning and evening). There should therefore be evidence for co-existence, and it seems this is indeed found in the world, for example:

Did humans take a long time to get smart?

The Darwinian evolutionary theory is that humans started as cavemen, and have become more and more complex and intelligent over time. But from the creation viewpoint, due to genetic losses people have been becoming less smart. Today we have greater technology but less intelligence. There is ample evidence of greatly intelligent people in antiquity, and for evolution this is and will remain a mystery.

Is evolution true?

Evolution theory does not scratch the itch. People must make up their own minds. Dozens of scientific truths once loudly proclaimed are now no longer held. For example, "the earth is flat". The Bible says it is round. Truth in the Bible is recognised more and more as real truth. The Bible is found to be true in flora, fauna, science, geography (correct sites of rivers, mountains), archaeology (sites in Israel, Libya, Ethiopia, Egypt), history (nations, names and functions of people in Luke’s gospel, Matthew’s census in the time of Augustus, famine in the book of Acts).

In contrast, science has its theories, but that does not mean that they work, and they are often overturned. This is scary, but comforting. The only logical alternative to spontaneous generation of life is the Biblical account of creation.

Do we see evolution today, but in minute ways?

No. Evolution from lower kinds to more complex kinds does not happen. There is no way, no mechanism, to add information which is required for evolution. We only get a dog from a dog. The Second Law of Thermodynamics shows that everything runs down (an apple core decomposes; a rolling ball stops).

There is disagreement about the mechanism of evolution. For instance, some believe birds evolved ground up, from running dinosaurs, while opponents believe it was tree down, from small reptiles. Both sides produce convincing arguments why the other cannot be. Likewise some support gradual evolution, but others insist on punctuated equilibria or saltationism, using strong arguments against the other option.

The logical conclusion is that all the arguments on both sides of the evolutionary mechanism dispute are true. Birds did not evolve either way - they never evolved at all. Neither gradual nor punctuated evolution is true - evolution simply did not and does not happen.

Why do scientists, if they are so smart, not recognise that evolution is wrong?

Once a person believes and starts defending something, it is very hard to have a change of mind. People dig in even over trivial issues, like whether the Eagles or the Saints are best! We see what we want to believe. Defending evolution has little to do with the evidence for or against, but on the belief framework in which we prefer to interpret the evidence. Someone who believes strongly in materialistic evolution has to ignore the evidence that the Bible's claims are true and that God has claimed credit for creating life on Earth.

Christianity, by contrast, invites us to assess truth. What do you really believe? If you decide it does not make sense, fine, but do something about the real evidence for what you believe.

The message for us is: "Don’t switch off your brain!" Examine the evidence, asking "Can it be so?" Be aware that science changes, but God never does.

References

  1. Darwin, C., Origin of Species, 6th ed. 1872, reprinted 1902, John Murray, London, p. 413.
  2. Gould, S.J., Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86(5):14, 1977.

Related Pages