Theory of Evolution is Anti-Science

This is another great and illustrative video from Answers in Genesis that reveals some profound truths in a very short time.

If you’ve been relying on evolutionists and the evolutionist-dominated institutions of education and media for your information, you may not be aware that the theory of evolution is contradicted by science.

When I was an evolutionist some 15 years ago, I had no idea of this, but it’s true.

For instance, science tells us that matter does not come into existence from nothing. Matter spontaneously springing into existence from nothing has never been observed in the field or in the laboratory, yet for the universe to have come into existence through materialistic and naturalistic processes without the aid of an intelligent designer, matter would have to be capable of coming into existence from nothing. This has never been observed, so these theories are unscientific.

Science also tells us that life does not come into existence from lifeless materials. Life springing from lifeless materials has never been observed in the field or in the laboratory. Therefore, the theory of evolution is unscientific because life could not even begin without a super-natural causation.

Further, science reveals that organisms do not spontaneously generate new genetic information. While natural selection and adaptation have been observed in nature, the transition from one organism into another kind of organism has never been observed, either through gradual processes or by sudden mutation. While evolutionists frequently cite antibiotic-resistant bacteria as an example of new genetic information, this actually involves a loss of genetic information–a loss of a protein which would normally allow the antibiotic compound to be absorbed. Since organisms have never been observed in the field or in the laboratory gaining new genetic information to become new types of organisms, the theory of evolution is contrary to science.

In short, a theory which is contradicted by the science it purports to depend upon cannot be considered a viable theory.  If a scientific theory requires key events which are not possible according to science,  it cannot be considered a scientific theory.  A theory which contradicts itself cannot be a logical theory, and the theories of materialism/naturalism/evolution are impossible within the framework of their own assumptions, i.e. that there is no intelligent designer.

It can be very challenging to grapple with the evidence that evolution is an inferior theory about origins and unviable scientifically. I went through that process about 15 years ago when I began to learn of evolution theory’s weaknesses, and the scientific viability of creation science.  I had no idea that what I thought was hard fact regarding the age of the earth and dead organisms via radiometric dating was in fact based on little more than a set of assumptions that not only cannot be verified, but are frequently found to be wildly incorrect when the age of the rock can be verified empirically.  As disconcerting as it was, in the end I realized I had to opt for the better, more logically consistent theory even at the expense of the comfort of a long-held idea.

Having discussed these issues with dozens of evolutionists since then, I’ve come to realize that most evolutionists can’t even come to terms with the difference between assumptions and facts, much less brave the jump from one worldview to another.  It can be an intimidating thing going from a lack of moral accountability to suddenly realizing you are morally accountable to a being powerful enough to create this enormous universe and everything in it–and realizing that you’ve failed to live up to that Being’s standards.

But for those of us who have made the transition from believing in evolution theory to believing in creation can tell you, it is one of the most intellectually enlightening experiences you will ever know.

Watch this short video from Answers in Genesis and give it some thought.

70 Responses to “Theory of Evolution is Anti-Science”

  1. Actually, the Catholic Church doesn’t have a problem with evolution or global climate change. It’s mostly Protestants who have a problem with science.

  2. No, some within the Catholic Church have decided to believe really bad, unsupported and illogical human ideas rather than what God has said. They’ll have to answer to him for that someday.

    Protestants don’t have a problem with science. Protestants who don’t buy the hypothesis of evolution have a problem with unsupported and contradicted assumptions being passed off as “science.”

  3. That’s fine, only instead of “making things simple to understand” over and over again, how about answering those questions I threw out there.  I would still like to see what your thoughts are on the fact that evolutionary theory allows one to accurately predict the results of experiments, and I’d like to see what you have to say about rooster teeth.

    I also don’t see anywhere that you addressed the fact that billions of miscopy and gene duplication events occur every minute over every square foot of the earth’s surface, which means that viable patterns of genes are going to be popping up all the time without any need for a designer. Believe me, I get what you’re saying. I don’t agree, but I understand where you’re coming from. At this point I’m just trying to get a feel for your thoughts and boundaries. It would be a lot easier to do so if you’d stop calling everyone stupid and answer the questions.

  4. As I said, I’m not going to waste either my time or yours–or readers–by discussing whether you can get to second or third base when you can’t even see the ball coming at you.

  5. Consider the following syllogism:

    The best explanation of specified complexity is design. Specified complexity is a universal feature of biological life (DNA, etc.). Therefore, specified complexity in living organisms is the product of design.

    Now, one must refute one or both of the premises in order to refute the conclusion. Anyone willing to give it a try?

  6. Your comments contain a hidden assumption, which is as follows: because we readily observe microevolution, macroevolution must be true. Just because finch beaks can change during a dry spell, it does not follow that a finch can eventually change into a completely different organism such as a mouse. Also never mentioned by evolutionists is the fact that the species reverts to it’s original type when the selection pressure is removed (the finch beaks revert back to normal when the dry spell is over). Microevolution PRESERVES the organism. I challenge you to provide one single example of macroevolution. In addition, your cancer illustration is actually quite useful. In general are genetic mutations helpful or harmful, that is, what is the ratio of helpful to harmful? Do such mutations add biological information or degrade biological information?

  7. Well, yes, that was a bit of a generalization, so I should qualify that statement and perhaps add a little more detail. Most Catholics, including pretty much all Roman Catholics who keep up to date with Vatican proclamations, believe that if God created everything, He necessarily created science and scientists, and if science finds something to be at odds with the Bible, that was probably God’s intention, and since it was not given to man to know the mind of God, we should probably just watch and see how the whole thing pans out. I’m taking some liberties there, but that’s more or less what the attitude is.

    The idea there is that religion deals with the spiritual and science deals with physical. The Catholic church also says that God clearly put all of creation here with the intent that we should understand it and further appreciate the majesty and beauty of all we have been given. That’s not a direct quote or anything, but if memory serves that’s what they said.

    Another consideration, and this is something the Vatican is somewhat upset about, is that Intelligent Design appeals to the argument of the god of the gaps. The god of the gaps argument says that if we don’t have a solid scientific theory for something, like the origin of life or the universe, or formerly, how life evolves, that is proof that God exists. One problem with this philosophy is that as our knowledge of how the universe works expands, “proof” of God’s existence disappears, which sort of means God is perpetually on the run from science. The more relevant problem, in my opinion, is that you’re basically defining God as ignorance. You’re saying that “We don’t know” is the same as “Proof of God”.

    So, that’s why you don’t generally find Catholics on the side of ID. Well, that and the Vatican says ID is not science. They also take this idea that mankind has stewardship of the world pretty seriously, so they’re concerned about global climate change. Think of it as borrowing your dad’s car. If you manage to set fire to it, God’s gonna be pretty ticked. They do, however, take an extremely dim view of abortion, and they can be outright nutty when it comes to contraception, but with regards to science, Catholics tend to be reasonable.

    Protestants, or at least American Protestants, on the other hand, are generally opposed to evolution and they’re pretty much the entire constituency for Intelligent Design. That right there should tell you something about the claim that ID is not a Christian movement. Protestants are also the bulk of the  deniers of the concept of global climate change.

    In fairness, it’s not science in general they don’t care for. They are perfectly happy, for instance, to make use of medications and therapies which have come about as a result of science that evolutionary theory has made possible. Rather they view certain scientific concepts as running contrary to their faith or impeding their rights. As I said earlier, the more… Fundamentalist Protestants see any gap in scientific knowledge as proof of the existence of God. For this reason evolution is a threat because it closes one of those gaps. The Protestant answer is not to accept this as the way God works and move on, but rather to rant and rail against it and try to make it stop. Remember, the more science knows about the origin of the universe, life, and species, the less room there is for “Ignorance god”.

    With regards to global climate change, many Protestants take an entirely different meaning from the bit of scripture about man being the stewards of the world, and this is a sort of two-pronged belief. First, they translate ‘stewards of the world’ to mean something like the world is our frat house, God gave it to us to exploit, ransack and loot. The second prong also works with the frat house mentality, because the majority of protestants expect to see judgement day in their lifetime. With that in mind, they don’t see any reason to save the planet for future generations. Thus global climate change and the necessary increase in environmental responsibility and restraint it would require are another thing Protestants work against.

    Now, earlier in this post I did say that Protestants in general are not opposed to science. There are a few Protestants, the hardcore fundamentalists, who are, in fact, deeply opposed to science. They feel that the only things mankind ever needed to learn are in the Bible, and any other knowledge is worthless and dangerous. These are people who actually believe that all of humanity should be on their knees, literally and figuratively, living in the dirt, just praying and biding our time until the rapture comes to take us. It’s worth noting that they generally express these views from inside an air conditioned house or while driving a huge American car while the only thing keeping them alive is modern medicine and, well, hatred and disgust.

  8. Assumptions also do not equate to evidence, only guesses, ideas and possibilities.
    I’m not saying that they do.
    There is a phenomenon of nature whereby the genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over successive generations. This is something we can observe and measure in natural populations and replicate in the laboratory. The scientists who study populations of organisms call this phenomenon of nature “evolution”.
    This is not about assumptions.
    It’s about how we define phenomena of nature.

    Like I said, stop wasting everyone’s time and come back when you’re intellectually equipped to have a meaningful conversation.

    I suggest that I am perfectly capable of engaging in meaningful conversation, and the fact that I have no need to resort to such petty denigratation of others to make my case shows that my position is much stronger than yours.

  9. Unlike Mr. Ellis, you have provided a very good counter to my points. I must say I will need some time to consider your statements before I reply.

  10. Specified Complexity is essentially a dressed up version of Henry Morris’ “The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution” which is itself a restating of a variation of the Infinite Monkey Theorem. That should tell you something about the quality of the argument. Dembski’s work is generally agreed to be… Well, to summarize the opinions of those in his field, his work is bad. Not only does he rehash an argument that’s nearly 200 years old, he leaves all the mistakes right in there, and then he does the math wrong. What makes it interesting is that he gets this argument wrong not only as a mathematician attempting to address a biological problem, which is fairly common, but he also manages to make glaring errors in the fields of statistics AND mathematics, in which he holds masters degrees. To wind that up, he mangles the English language overlooks some fairly basic points of logic.

    Dembski and Morris both make the mistake of tailoring a set of requirements that cannot be met by system and variables they also provide, and then pretending that this is proof of… Well, anything. That’s not even remotely science, and it’s kind of the opposite of logic. It’s the intellectual equivalent of saying “Well, God only exists if the number I’m thinking of is five. Aww, I was thinking eight. Sorry, that proves there’s no God.” In debates, this is called a strawman.

    making an assumption about the probability of an event that has already occurred, and was a one time event. An event which has occurred has an automatic probability of 1:1. A one time event will not occur enough times to provide a basis for a statistical model. These are things that are covered in remedial statistics, and I would hope a master’s level education would cover these multiple times. Morris made this same mistake, but then Morris could be forgiven. His training was in hydraulics, and when he did it, in 1973, it was actually a novel idea.

    The other mistake that Dembski, Morris, and numerous others make is in just plain not understanding how evolution works. Dembski and Morris put forth an analogy in terms of a series of coin tosses representing mutations. Morris has 200, Dembski 1000. For the monkeys and typewriters it’s the length of psalm 23. Their contention is that evolution can’t be correct because the odds of getting that many coin tosses to land heads up (or tails up depending on what you think best represents a successful mutation) are just plain too long. And what happens if there’s a bad toss? You start over from zero. That’s not evolution.

    Evolution saves data. If a mutation is not beneficial, the species does not cease to exist. In fact, the bulk of all mutations are neutral in nature, and go totally unnoticed. The majority of the species in question will be functionally the same as the previous generation at any given time. If a mutation is detrimental, one organism dies. Not the entire species. Restarting the count from zero on a bad coin toss is the equivalent of saying that if one organism gets cancer, that entire species dies. Not only is this not the way evolution works, it’s really, really obviously wrong. This simple fact shuts down the majority of Dembski’s Specified Complexity premise. The system he is modeling isn’t evolution, doesn’t work like evolution, and proves nothing relating to evolution.

    In my humble opinion, the single greatest mistake made by Morris, Dembski, and pretty much anyone who insists that a designer is necessary to account for the evolution of life on this planet is that they don’t understand how design actually works. They assume that the process is working toward a specific end product. Anyone who has designed a marginally complicated functional device or structure from scratch can tell you that at some point in that process the plan will change, and what you end up with is not going to be the product that most closely matches the thing as you first envisioned it when you started, but rather the thing that works. In evolution, this is the key criterion.

    The universe does not care if we have hands, tentacles, claws, cilia or stumps. There was no requirement for humans to have a skeleton on the inside, outside, or at all. Intelligence is a quaint novelty, but had humans never developed intelligence, the universe would have gone on all the same. There is no one right combination of genetic material. Any combination that works is valid, and as the tremendous biodiversity of our planet shows, pretty much anything goes.

    The monkeys on the typewriters never had to come up with a Shakespearean sonnet or psalm 23, Morris didn’t need 200 coin tosses to land heads up and Dembski didn’t need 1000. The only requirement for any of those scenarios is one answer that works, and there literally an infinite number of answers that do. At least, that’s my feeling on the matter.

    Another consideration is that even if you were to prove that something were statistically unlikely on Earth, (Dembski and Morris didn’t) statistically unlikely is never the same as impossible, and you also have a number of planets in the universe that dwarfs any odds you can come up with. If it didn’t happen here, it would have happened somewhere.

    So yeah, that’s Specific Complexity refuted.

  11. Okay, good to know.

  12. I honestly don’t know whether Catholics believe any of what you’ve said or not. I hope not, because what you’ve described is nonsensical gobbledygook.

    Put simply, Intelligent Design is the examination of the universe with the assumption that SOME intelligent designer created it. That designer may or may not be God.

    Creationism is the examination of the universe with the assumption that the creator is the God of the Bible.

    Frankly, I can’t think of a single Christian, Protestant or Catholic, who is opposed to science. I think you have bought into a caricature of Bible-believing Christians that is either unintentionally ignorant and obtuse, or is (more likely) a deliberate distortion intended to allow easier dismissal of ideas that atheists/evolutionists find uncomfortable.

    But as I said, there’s no point in discussing any of this until you’re ready to deal with reality…and I’m getting pretty tired of repeating that, so don’t be surprised if I cut off this thread abruptly.

  13. Yes you are saying that. Assumptions are all you have been able to proffer in defense of your illogical and self-contradictory hypothesis–not surprising, since that is all that is available for it’s defense.

    I hate to disappoint you, but repetitively obtuse behavior does not equate to a stronger position either. This conversation is over.

  14. “This body of evidence must point beyond a reasonable doubt toward the suspects guilt before the initial conclusion can be legally affirmed”
    Beautiful, this is exactly what science is about! Gathering data and facts about a phenomenon and come up with an explanation for it (a theory). When new data are discovered, that are in discordance with the accepted explanation, then a new explanation is required: a shift in paradigm (such as from creationism to evolution in the mid XIX century, or from Newton gravity law to Einstein theory of relativity). Just  like when new evidences on a crime scene are found, sometimes the case is re-opened.

    You didn t use the supernatural power explanation to explain what happened on the crime scene, why would it be any different for science?

  15. You’re right: that’s exactly what science is about.

    Unfortunately, what passes for science today doesn’t involve examining the body of evidence and deriving theories based on the parameters allowed by the evidence. “Science” today involves examining the body of evidence and deriving theories (I’m being generous here) based on the parameters of the theory. In other words, if you can imagine it, and it fits within the general parameters of the theory, then we call that a “scientific fact.”

    I didn’t use the supernatural power explanation for the crime scene, in this comparison, because like most of life, there are very few supernatural interventions. Even if you read through the Bible, you’ll find that the overwhelming majority of the events described there happened without supernatural intervention. In the Christian worldview, God created the universe and the scientific laws that govern it, but he seldom supersedes those laws. Like a computer programmer can suspend or supersede or change the “laws” of the program he builds, God can do that, but seldom has occasion to do so. God supernaturally created the universe and the scientific laws that govern it originally, then supernaturally changed some of those laws after man’s rebellion and “The Fall,” then did so again to initiate the global flood, but those were the only times he’s made any major intervention in the scientific laws that govern the universe. He’s made some smaller ones here and there, like the virgin birth of Christ, water into wine, raising the dead and so forth, but the vast majority of the time, God operates within his own scientific laws, just as if I (having over a decade of computer programming experience) create a program, most of the time I’m going to use my program according to the parameters I created rather than tweak it continually.

    The only real difference between the way evolutionists view the world and the way creationists view the world is that (a) evolutionists assume no supernatural influence and a vast age for the universe–to allow for the “magic” that vast amounts of time can perform for theories that are otherwise unworkable, and (b) creationists assume supernatural causation for the major events in the life of our universe, and the normal flow of scientific law for the vast majority of time.

    I hope this helps.

  16. Ok, but the supernatural power could be still responsible for the crime scene, even if it happens seldom…you can’t formally rule out this possibility…Therefore, using a supernatural explanation isn’t practical since one can not predict accurately when this power is going to do something (it could be any time, or never, you can’t tell for sure when your god is going to do something).
    That’s why the creationist theory isn’t going to make the cut in science (among many other reasons): because it can’t deliver predictable results (due to the unpredictibility of the supernatural power).

  17. You might not be able to completely rule it out, but given that God seldom intervenes in a supernatural fashion, the logical thing to do is to look at everyday explanations first.

    Predicting what God might do in the future isn’t practical (beyond what he has already said he would do in the Bible), but he has given us an account of what he did in the past, so we can examine the physical evidence in light of this account to see if it fits. In most cases it does, and quite easily.

    The only reason creation theory hasn’t made the cut for the last couple of hundred years is because creationists in the past have failed to rigorously defend their ideas on the field of science, essentially forfeiting that ground to people with unsupported, self-contradictory and illogical ideas. Really stupid on our part. Especially stupid because once they gained control of the field and redefined “science” to encompass guesses and assumptions (only so long as those assumptions assume no supernatural causation), creation theory has been locked out by design, a la Ben Stein’s “Expelled.”

    In a fair, objective and consistent arena of ideas, however, they hypothesis of evolution would die a quick and bloody death because, as I have pointed out many times, it fatally contradicts itself in numerous places.

  18. Wow! Somebody touched a nerve. So many words! So many convictions. We all believe in something, don’t we? Just to get real basic (I am not trained in science), the problem I have with evolutionists is that somehow, the more they learn about their field, the more anti-God they become. But science can only study natural phenomena (creation), not the Creator. Romans 1:20 says that God’s power and nature are clearly seen and understood by what has been made (creation). So, the deeper we are able to probe into living structures as complex as one living cell, the more we should be able to grasp that God created it. You either believe that or not. “Science” cannot prove or disprove it. If irreducible complexity doesn’t impact your thinking about “Intelligent Design” I feel sorry for you. In your worship of “science” you refuse to acknowledge anything that violates the premise of your theory — oops! — hypothesis, which is irrelevant, because frankly, Evolution is being taught as fact, and the anti-creationist crowd is oppressive in their censure of non-evolutionary scientific points of view. 

  19. That was my response to the first premise. Biological organisms do not exhibit specified complexity as Dembski defines it, because specified complexity is itself a flawed concept. If we were talking about a valid concept, for instance plain ordinary complexity, design would still not be the best explanation due to the fact that of the two working explanations (I suppose there could be more than two, but for purposes of this post, design and evolution) only one has any sort of provable, scientific value, which would render it the best explanation.

    As for ‘explaining’ DNA, that’s a pretty big and somewhat vague question, and quite honestly I lack the technical knowledge to do the answer any justice. With regards to evolution, however, I can say that the origin of DNA and RNA are outside the purview of evolution, as is the origin of life and the universe, and that really doesn’t prove or disprove anything.