14 reasons to rethink evolution
I wrote these points for a fellow Christian who had had many an objection thrown at them by somewhat irate evolutionists, so you’ll excuse the casual style in which I address the issues! Hopefully others will research these points too if they find something that peaks their interest.
1. Origins of life!
We can't begin to talk about evolution without an explanation of the first life. The question is such a persistent one that famous atheists now believe that aliens seeded life on earth, they say that while neglecting that the aliens need seeding too! It's always an interesting question, as life doesn't come from inorganic things, life doesn't spring from non-life, mind doesn't spring from matter. So if we've got a planet full of rocks and other inorganic material, at what point do they produce offspring?
2. Macroevolution vs Microevolution!
It's a sleight of hand trick that many evolutionists unknowingly play when they misrepresent evidence for microevolution as evidence for macroevolution. Seeing through it brings the entire case of macroevolution to a grinding halt.
3. Genetic limits!
Genetic limits are built into the kinds of animal we find, as in the feline kind remains feline, the canine remains canine, and the bacteria kind remains bacteria. We can toy with dog kind from the chihuahua to the German Shepard, still they remain dogs.
4. Fruit fly experiments!
This is related to genetic limits also, as we've been manipulating fruit flies in an attempt to prove macroevolution for ages now. We picked fruit flies because their lifespan is relatively short, so we observed something like 3000 consecutive generations of fruit fly, we poked them, prodded them, and generally stretched them by different ways until they were a mess. We ended up with only three types of fly by the end, basic fruit flies, crippled fruit flies, and dead fruit flies. This isn’t just an experiment gone wrong, it’s positive evidence against macroevolution.
5. Cyclical change!
‘This shows how changes in organisms aren't directional towards the development of new life forms, as macroevolutionary theory requires, they simply shift back and forth with a limited range. For example, Darwin's finches had varying beak sizes, which correlated with the weather. So the beaks changed in shape and size, then went back to their original size based on the weather alone, a bit like when animals get thicker coats during the winter. So this icon of evolution doesn't really support the evolution of monkey into man, the theory every hardcore evolutionist hopes for.
6. Irreducible complexity!
Charles Darwin wrote "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ exists, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." We have found such organs. Look for a guy named Michael Behe on the subject, he has YouTube videos and everything, does the odd lecture. The theory has shaken evolution up pretty bad, the level of hatred thrown at it says it all.
7. Transitional forms!
There's a Darwinian assertion that reptiles became birds, the problem is when you've got an animal that's half bird and half reptile, they're useless for both flight and hunting on land. How does a creature survive when they no longer have scales, but don't yet have feathers? It would be a mess just waiting for survival of the fittest to end its misery. So Darwinists have no mechanism to make these changes happen, nor would the changes work if put into practice.
8. Molecular isolation!
‘Darwinists say that evidence for common descent lies in the fact that all living things contain DNA. In other words, because we share DNA with other living things we must have evolved from one another, but in reality shared DNA is the sign of a shared designer. We don't just share DNA with monkeys, as people may have us believe, mice and men share about 97.5% of their genetic material, so only 2.5 percent separate us, we even share 40 to 50% of our DNA with bananas….yep, bananas. So being made up of shared material is no big deal, a shepherd's pie didn't evolve from spaghetti because people use tomato for both.
9. The fossil record!
This info is covered everywhere so you can search loads about it, and regardless of the bold assertions, it's not good reading for evolution. The fossil record hasn't been kind to the theory. ‘Without the benefits of today's technology, Charles Darwin could not recognise the problems his theory faced at the cellular level. However, he did recognise that the fossil record posed a big problem for his theory because it didn’t show gradualism. That's why he wrote:
Why then 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, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
But Darwin thought that further fossil discoveries would reveal that his theory was true. Time has proven him wrong. If Darwinism were true, we would have found thousands (if not millions) of transitional fossils by now. Instead, according to the late Harvard palientologist Stephen Jay Gould (himself an evolutionist,) "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:"
1). Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; Morphological change is usually limited and direction less. 2). Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed.
10. The Cambrian explosion!
This was so big people called it biology's big bang. In the fossil record "All animal groups appear separately, fully formed and at the same time. There's no evidence of gradual evolution but of instantaneous creation." Darwinian evolution made predictions totally opposed to this, sadly nobody cared when it's predictions were all proven bogus, they just worked their way around the pesky data.
11. Vestigial organs!
This is the idea that we should have useless organs from our days as monkeys, another prediction of Darwinian evolution. Two famous examples are the appendix and the so-called tail bone, both of which we have found the use of. The number of our supposed vestigial organs has dwindled from 100 and something in the 1800's, to zero now. It’s a failed prediction.
12. Plantinga’s argument against naturalism from evolution!
This isn’t just a good objection in my book, it’s excellent. Darwin wrote: "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"
So Darwin was thinking what we all probably think, if we mock monkey society as slow, dimwitted and unable to unlock the secrets of the universe, why are we (as merely hairless chimps) any better? I share Alvin Plantinga’s objection like this. Imagine we're on a planet where aliens have evolved without eyes, at what point would one alien turn to the other and ask what’s your favourite colour? They'd never do it. Not only could we have evolved without major truth finding organs or senses, but evolution isn't concerned with truth, it’s concerned with survival and reproduction.
So evolution, if true, would destroy our ability to do good science. What about the alternative of design? "Plantinga asserts that this doubt arises for naturalists or atheists, but not for those who believe in God. That is because if God has created us in his image, then even if he fashioned us by some evolutionary means, he would presumably want us to resemble him in being able to know; but then most of what we believe might be true even if our minds have developed from those of the lower animals." So we need God for this to be trustworthy.
13. Evolution undermines human value!
These kinds of argument don't really show evolution is wrong, they simply show the awful conclusions of embracing such an inadequate viewpoint. Ants enslave aphids, cats eat their kittens, sharks force other sharks into mating, we don't call things like that rape though, since the animal kingdom has no moral dimension to it, whatever is is right. We do have that moral dimension however, it's something we have because there's a law written upon our hearts. Under evolution we lose this, we're reduced to slime and squealing pigs with delusions of grandeur.
14. Natural selection a destructive process!
Rereading point seven helps highlight what I mean here. The late Anthony Flew, who was like the Madonna of atheism in his day, also criticised natural selection as being unable (even in part) to produce anything like the intelligent life we see today. So the maths of evolution is a bit like 2 – 2 = 4, in reality the animal kingdom would slaughter and mutate itself into oblivion under the evolutionist's view, yet we're expected to believe the opposite happened on their viewpoint.
Lastly, on a more philosophical level, I read this recent dialogue between Ron Carlson and a biology teacher who supported evolution. During a meal together the conversation began, Carlson had just given a lecture on why certain types of evolution aren’t possible:
"So what did you think of my lecture?" Carlson asked.
"Well, Ron, what you say is true and makes a lot of sense. But I’m going to continue teaching Darwinism anyway."
"Why would you do that?" Carlson asked.
"Well, to be honest with you, it's because Darwinism is morally comfortable. I mean if Darwinism is true….if there is no God and we all evolved from slimy green algae, then I can sleep with whomever I want."
Huxley (Darwin's bulldog) said the same thing, he said "The reason we accept Darwinism even without proof, is because we didn't want God to interfere with our sexual mores." Obviously it's not fair to say all evolutionists have that sort of attitude, I think many are just afraid of being mistreated for showing opposition to the theory. Evolution is an industry, and to deny the theory threatens the industry, roughing up museums, universities and colleges in the skirmish. What we can do is be informed on the best reasons to rethink evolution.
― Tyrone Cormack