Who are we, where did we come from and why are we here? Part 8

Part 8: Creation vs. Evolution—12 things Evolutionists cannot answer, but must!

(This blog is part of a series. You can start the series by going back to the September 1, 2014 Introduction called A Case for Christianity: Why do we need one?)

“…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science…It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) pp. 456, 475.

Charles Darwin knew that his proposition of evolution as a means for the origin of complex life was based on an unstable foundation, particularly because it would not be able to stand the test of time (the lack of discovery of missing links in the fossil record), and it could not be proven using empirical science. However, Darwin did do much to help us understand how living things adapt and change based on environment and survival needs within their species (microevolution), but this does not and cannot transfer into how the living thing came to be (macroevolution). It cannot answer the question of origin nor can it address the profound differences between the major kinds of living things we see today and the fact that those same living things are found in the oldest fossil records with no differences in their body structures.

The Problem: Evolutionary theory uses philosophy not science. Evolutionary theory can answer some of the hows but it cannot answer the whys. Origin questions require forensic science that studies the past with evidence for how a thing came to be. If there are competing philosophical theories concerning origin of life that can equally present empirical science then it is incumbent upon the scientific community to allow the evidence to be presented. Any way you look at it there are problems with Darwinian Evolution. Neo-Darwinian evolution has tried to answer some of the problems with Darwin’s original theory with the newer hypotheses like “punctuated equilibrium” (a hypothesis with no evidence as evidence) and “homologous structures” (common design among many living things). However, they still cannot answer or begin to address the following problems that Intelligent Design and Creation Science can:

Problems for Darwinian/Neo-Darwinian Evolution and questions that need to be answered:

  1. The origin of first life: Why is there something rather than nothing at all—where did it all come from?
  2. Life does not consist merely of chemicals: If this were true mixing the chemicals of life would produce life—What is the missing ingredient?
  3. There are no known natural laws that produce specified complexity: The DNA that codes for all life and functions of life is information and information can only come from intelligence—where does it come from?
  4. The search for the cause of origin is a forensic science with only two possible causes: Intelligent and natural—which one holds more reasonable evidence?
  5. Spontaneous generation of life has never been observed: Can we make something from nothing? Do non-living materials give rise to living material?
  6. Genetic limits—New information needs to be added to the DNA to create a new or different kind of living organism and that is genetically impossible: Have we observed macroevolution occurring between genetically different species (a new kind from another kind) as should be evidenced in evolution’s theory of origins?
  7. Cyclical changes within species never produce a new life form: Have beak size changes, wing size changes or bacteria mutations ever resulted in a new kind of organism?
  8. There is irreducible complexity in biological systems and in structures that exist in all living things: How does an organ or organ system function in the transitional stages if its parts have to be all together at the same time in order to be operational?
  9. Non-viability of transitional forms: If evolution requires transitional forms then how do they continue to evolve in a climate of natural selection based on survival of the fittest? In transition how would they have all of the necessary functions to compete or the necessary instructions in the DNA to continue to survive?
  10. Molecular isolation—outside similarities vs. inside: How do you get new molecules added to completely different codes that are isolated inside all species? Does similarity in structure on the outside account for dissimilarity of molecules on the inside?
  11. Mathematical probability does not support enough time for chance to cause evolutionary changes between living organisms: How much time is needed for these random changes or transitions to occur? Why do evolutionists keep moving their timeframe back and can moving the clock back ever answer the origin question?
  12. The fossil record is scare for transitional forms—Morphology suggests that tens of thousands of transitional forms should be seen if evolution was true, and they are not: What do evolutionists do with the Cambrian explosion? Why do the few fossils evolutionists hold up as transitional appear to be isolated individual species not transitional forms? Why do owners of the few so-called human missing links keep the specimens locked up and unavailable for viewing? (Could money be an issue here?)

First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires…But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these same waters also the world of that time was destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.  2 Peter 3:3-7

Let me know what you think: Should competing theories with equally valid empirical evidence be allowed to be presented in the public educational system so students can decide for themselves? Should evolutionist be required to answer for the lack of evidence in their theory?

Come back next week for: Are Miracles Possible? (Should Science be talking about the supernatural?)

Over the next several blogs I am going to continue to present logical reasoning and sound scientific evidence not found in the public school textbooks.

Teri Dugan


Always be ready to give an answer for the hope that you have in Christ Jesus as Lord.

1 Peter 3:15

Sorry, comments are closed for this post.