Evolution On Trial: Fossils Take the Stand

April 4, 2012

Last Call for Fossils.  Fossils, where are you at?  Apparently the fossil record is in danger of not showing up for court and being held in contempt.  It’s about time.  Sorry for the bad humor….  The next witness to take the stand is the fossil record.  The fossil record is most likely the most over used evidence for Evolution today.   We will take a closer look at the fossil record and see why it does not make a good witness/evidence for evolution either.  I will address the fossil record in 2 parts, ape-men fossils, and the rest of the animal fossils, specifically transitional fossils.

First, lets examine the transitional fossils and define what a transitional fossil is.  A transition fossil is a has characteristics that are intermediate in nature to organisms that existed both prior to it and after it. 1  There is some debate as to what is a transitional fossil and what is not.  Supporters of Evolution say that every fossil is a transitional fossil in some capacity.  Several months ago someone tried to explain the fossil record to me as a blank line, that was continuous.   The gaps or parts missing where just not found in the fossil record.

As some one who is skeptical of evolution, I am looking for more in the fossil record that tightly connects fossils between different genus species, which is what the claims of Evolution make.  In other words, more of the evidence that macro-evolution is valid.  So at one point I would say that yes, there are transitional fossils that show a change from one type of prehistoric turtle to another turtle or one type of prehistoric horse to a more modern style horse.

In Darwin’s theory of Evolution he acknowledge himself that in order for his own theory to be proven it would have to be found true in the fossil record. 2  These types of fossils he was hoping to find have yet to be found.     You may have seen pictures of the famous tree of life drawings that Darwin and evolution supporters have used to explain.  The simplified drawing in my blog comes from a book by Chris Sherrod. 3  It is meant to serve as a simple example of the tree of life, other drawings are often more complicated.

I have repeatedly asked people to give me examples of transitional fossils between species and I get 2 responses typically.  First, there are none, because fossils are hard to come by and the transitional ones have been destroyed due to fossils becoming fuel for us greedy humans to use up as energy.  Secondly often bad examples start popping up.  I’ve been told to look at Wikipedia, I’ve been told look at videos on YouTube that people have created with a type of “flip book” effect, and I’ve been shown pictures of prehistoric animals that could pass for a modern-day type of animal.   Here is why I call these bad examples.  The list on Wikipedia is there, and it is long, BUT, most of the pictures of transitional fossils are drawings, artist interpretations, not even based on real fossils found.  There are a few small bones, that are from incomplete remains, but most are drawings.  The YouTube video that is highly pushed also falls under the same boat.  They are drawings.  The pictures of actual fossils found I can easily take a few seconds on each one and call it a member of one of the species that we have today.

Every once in a while someone will bring up the Archaeopteryx, which was discovered 2 years after Darwin wrote The Origin of Species.  You can see from the picture that it is a very interesting fossil for more than one reason.  It is complete and in good condition and appears to be a combination of a reptile and a bird.   Evolutionist said this was a true transitional fossil and crowned it as evidence.  But since it was found in 1861 a majority of scientists believe now that it is most likely a strange type of bird for the following reasons.

1. It was not really a good transitional fossil, because of the fully formed wings and fully formed tail it looks more like a creature that would stand as a different animal, not one in transition.   It’s wings, tail, and claws suggest it was a type of bird possible related to the liaoningornis, recently discovered.

2. The Archaeopteryx was dated to be in the Jurassic period in which birds had already been established in by thousands of pre-dated fossils.  It doesn’t fit the time sequence if birds had already evolved.  HE must have been a “late bloomer.”

3. Lastly, there has only been 1 fossil found of the Archaeopteryx.  It is in the Natural History Museum in Berlin, and not a standard re-occurring fossil that we find all over the place. 4

The Fossil Record does not look good for supporting Evolution.  Scientists know this and that is why they have come up with some alternate theories about the fossil record, trying to fit  a square (Evolution) into a round hole (The fossil record).  In 1972 Steven Jay Gould & Niles Eldredge  proposed a theory called “Punctuated Equilibrium.”  This is the idea that evolution happened in quick  “spurts”  rather than over a gradual slow process.   There are 2 problems with this theory;

1. There are no transitional fossils found that support this theory.  It would be absurd to think that the organisms would change over night.

2. P.E. goes against all current knowledge we have with DNA and adaption.  For an organism to change like that would  go against all DNA and genetic science that we know about. 5

Going back through the layers of rock there is an interesting discovery between the pre-Cambrian ad Cambrian time periods.  In the pre-Cambrian rock there are few fossils and most of the fossils are invertebrates, but at the dating of the Cambrian rock there seems to be a this enormous amount of fossils of many different kinds and types.  This time has been called the Cambrian explosion, because it appears that these fossils came out from nowhere.  Each side of the argument between creationists and Evolution supporters have their own ideas about why this is so.

I will look at the ape-men fossils in the next post, I don’t want to get to long-winded with this post.  If you have any questions, comments, rebuttals please feel free to leave them.

End Notes:

1. – http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutevolution/a/TransitionalFossilsEvolution.htm

2. – Darwin, Charles, “The Origin of Species” pg. 152

3. – Sherrod, Chris, “Faith, Fact, and Reason Study #5 The Flaws of Evolution” pg. 28

4. – Rhodes, Ron, “10 Things You Should Know About the Evolution and Creation Debate.” Chapter 4

5. – Rhodes, Ron, “10 Things You Should Know About the Evolution and Creation Debate.” Chapter 4


Evolution on Trial: Mutations Take the Stand

April 3, 2012

The next witness we will look at in the case of Evolution is mutations.  I am not talking about bringing any of the X-Men to the stand either.  In the Theory of Evolution mutations and natural selection are two of the main pillars that hold up the case for evolution.  We will look at natural selection in a separate post in the future.

According to Britannica:

Mutation – Alteration in the genetic material of a cell that is transmitted to the cell’s offspring. Mutations may be spontaneous or induced by outside factors (mutagens). They take place in the genes, occurring when one base is substituted for another in the sequence of bases that determines the genetic code, or when one or more bases are inserted or deleted from a gene. Many mutations are harmless, often masked by the presence of a dominant normal gene. Some have serious consequences; for example, a particular mutation inherited from both parents results in sickle-cell anemia. Only mutations that occur in the sex cells (eggs or sperm) can be transmitted to the individual’s offspring. Alterations caused by these mutations are usually harmful. In the rare instances in which a mutation produces a beneficial change, the percentage of organisms with this gene will tend to increase until the mutated gene becomes the norm in the population. In this way, beneficial mutations serve as the raw material of evolution. 1

The last two sentences in the paragraph above dealing with beneficial mutations “being the raw material in Evolution” when the “mutated gene becomes the norm in the population” is what I will take issue with.  This is where the credibility of mutations, losses it power to influence Evolution.

First, lets look at some facts about mutations.

1. Mutations are rare in the first place because an enzyme acts as a sort of proofreader during DNA replication to check for mistakes.  When a genetic mistake is found, the tendency is to correct it.

2. Mutations distort, destroy, or damage the current DNA structure and do not improve or add to it.  As John Morris, faculty of the ICR (Institute for Creation Research) describes “It‘s instructive to try to imagine what must happen to turn a cell into an invertebrate, or a worm into a fish, or a fish into an amphibian, etc. List the structural changes needed. A cell doesn‘t have the genes needed to produce even a simple nodal chord, nor does a fish have the genes to produce legs. This extra genetic information must be added from some external source, but science knows of no such source. Mutations do produce novel changes, but never has a mutation been known to add coded information to an already complex DNA system. On the contrary, it usually and easily causes a deterioration of the information present in the DNA. For random mutations to add the information for a leg where there is none is asking a lot, in fact, asking too much.” 2

The final question is are mutations beneficial?  There seems to be a handful of examples floating around as proof that they are.  Perhaps you may have heard of some of the following examples;  two copies of the mutant sickle-cell anemia gene cause illness, one copy confers resistance to malaria,  the Pima, a Native American tribe that have to be on a special diet to avoid being morbidly over-weight, artificial breeding of crops and livestock that produce greater yields and drought resistance crops. 3   These hypothetical examples of beneficial mutations were all discovered in a lab and through human experiments.  All of these examples did not produce a new animal genus from another, in other words they fall into the label of adaptions rather than macro-evolution.

You can see that mutations sound exciting but, when you take a closer look at mutations there is really a lot of talk and clearly not enough action behind the idea of mutations.  One such objection to this is that the mutations take place so slowly that it i often hard to see and observe in our human lifetime or over the last several hundred years of scientific study.  This objection will lead us to the next to the witness, the fossils, and a closer look at the fossil record.  As always, questions, comments, and discussions are welcome.

End Notes:

1. – http://www.britannica.com/bps/search?query=mutations

2. – Morris, John D. , “Can the Small Changes  We See Add Up to the Big Changes Evolution Needs?”, Article 2002

3.  – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation


Evolution of Trial: Gene Flow Take the Stand

April 1, 2012

Since the Supreme court was in the news recently with ObamaCare I figured I would use the analogy with the next few posts on Evolution and show how the evidence and facts don’t make good witnesses in a case defending Evolution.  The first witness that we will put on the stand will be Gene Flow.

Gene flow is the transfer of genetic material between separate populations. Many organisms are divided into separate populations that have restricted contact with each other, possibly leading to reproductive isolation. Many things can fragment a species into a collection of isolated populations. For example, a treacherous mountain pass may cut off one herd of mountain goats from another. 1  Gene Flow is a process that describes how the genes are keep local or spread from different plants and animals of the same family.

Gene Flow is often refered to in the human population and see by very easily in America especially in the large metropolitan areas where there is a highly diverse population of people from different areas of the world.  You can see the beautiful combinations of skin colors from the different people who get married and have children.

For example if a missionary’s family were to move to a remote location in a different part of the world and their family slowly is mixed through generations into the local population.  You might see skin color changes, height and weight changes, facial features or other features of the local population.  The same can be said of other plants and animals that would be closed off from others.  If Gene Flow is restricted you will see a population become less and less diverse because the amount of available information from the total Gene Pool is mixed in with the smaller population.   The Gene Pool just represents the total number of possible alleles (pairs of genes) for that particular chromosome within a family or species.

The human Gene Pool contains a massive 40,000 different varieties of genes that can be mixed in many different combinations within the 46 chromosomes we have.  If this is confusing to you, I suggest getting a deeper look at Gene Flow and the other terms online or in a simple biology book.   I will be looking at genes and the science over the next few posts.

Now that we have a basic knowledge of Gene Flow and the Gene Pool lets look at why it makes a poor witness on the stand defending evolution.  No matter how much the gene’s “flow” it will not ever produce new genetic material.  In the above examples with goats and humans, in all the cases the goats are still goats, and the people still people.  This all fits into the umbrella of micro-evolution or adaption.  There are no invertebrates that become vertebrates, or amphibians that become reptiles.  Gene Flow of this type has never been seen or accomplished with a lab.  The DNA will not allow it.

What about Hybrids?  Someone might respond with the examples of the Liger (Lion and Tiger) or another type of hybrid.   These type of examples of Gene Flow are so rare that they do not affect the total population of a genus and do not survive in the world without human intervention by care in a zoo.  There are no known hybrids between different genuses, only between sub-species like a  Bengal tiger and Siberian tiger.  A hybrid of goat and sheep for example that are closely related, but when they mate the children are usually still-born and if they survive they are always infertile. 2   People have experimented with different types of hybrids in the labs, but when left in the wild the animals do not choose to mingle.  These hybrids would fall more into the area of mutations and we will look at that witness on the stand in an upcoming post.

One possible rebuttal that someone might give you defending evolution is that “given enough time over millions and millions of years these little changes add up to changes in genuses and new genetic material is born.”  This is false, because if no new genetic material can from within a short-term, then the same is expected with the long-term.  Time is a distraction here and has nothing to do with the process of Gene Flow and Genetic Drift.

For example: 0+0+0+0 = 0 and at the same time 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0 = 0

According to Genesis 1:24 “And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. “  God created the animals separately.  I realize that we can’t view the creation story just like we can’t observe evolution in the past, but according to the evidence we do have about plant and animal life now, you have to honestly ask yourself what does the evidence we do have now support?  We will cover creation in later blogs.  As always questions, comments, and discussions are welcome.

References:

1 – http://www.answers.com/topic/gene-flow#ixzz1pcMgvfea

2. – http://www.answers.com/topic/sheep-goat-hybrid

3.  – Sherrod, Chris; Faith, Fact, and Reason: Study #5 The Flaws of Evolution pgs. 75-76


Defining Terms: Strawman Argument

November 9, 2011

In my last post I used the phrase “Straw Man argument.” I wanted to explain what the term meant and give a few examples of it in apologetic discussions.  The term Straw Man fallacy can also be used interchangeability.

Straw Man Argument – Straw man arguments involve misrepresenting the view-point of someone else to make it easier to knock down.  This can be done by defining a term incorrectly, not presenting all the facts or view points that might be controversial, it can even been from out-right purposeful lying.

Apologist Chris Sherrod uses the example of a statement often made by Darwinian Evolutionists.  “You creations don’t accept the fact that evolution can be observed.”  Here the mistake is referring to the type of evolution that is described.  Macro Evolution vs. Micro Evolution.  Christians do see and support micro evolution, it is also called adaption.  What has never been observed is macro evolution where living organisms change species.

Just this afternoon I went to hear a man, who called himself an atheist, speak on the subject of America not being a Christian nation at it’s foundation.  During the question section of his time he began to talk about the Biblical view of slavery and how Christians have changed their view of slavery over time.  He made several comments hinting that God approved of slavery or that enslaving other slaves from other nations was commanded by God.    He told the group that there were verses in the Bible where God instructed them that it was okay to have slaves and even referenced the apostle Paul saying that Paul instructed the Slaves to obey their masters.   I saw the straw man argument that was being build up before my eyes.   At the proper time I spoke up and called the argument for what it was.  I told the man that he was misrepresenting the Biblical idea of slavery and that no where did God command the Hebrews to take slaves and make them their own.  When he said I was wrong, I asked him to produce the verse, and he could not.   I shared a few differences between Old Testament Slavery and the typical African slavery that many people think about today.  I didn’t want to take up his time with the students, so I quickly wrapped it up and we agreed to talk over email in the future.

I didn’t have to mention that  Biblical slavery was voluntary by the person so that they could work off a debt owed that they could not pay.   These slaves were treated as well as the friends and family in the home.  They were given rights just as a free person was.  After 7 years the slave had to be set free, no matter if the debt was paid off.  One last thought that I wished I would have mentioned was that just because the Bible talks about something like slavery or divorce for example, it doesn’t mean that God approved of that action or practice.  Much of the Bible is descriptive and not prescriptive.  It describes the people and their actions.  People who are imperfect sinners, just like me, who make wrong choices.  I don’t know if he was unaware of the differences and the straw man argument that he was building, but  I felt compelled to speak up and not let the truth be misrepresented.  If any of the students from the Parkview SSA club are reading this,  I wanted to let you know that I actually started this post 2 days ago and did not start it today because of the discussion we had.  I had a bit of writers block until today.

The best way to defend against the straw man fallacy is to know your stuff.  To know what you believe and why so that you can stop the straw man from being easily pushed over in an argument.  This takes time and effort on your part, but if you are going to allow God to use you in helping people understand the true Biblical worldview, it is a must.  One of the ways that I try to help maintain as much knowledge that I can is through taking notes.  Research shows that if you take notes within 24 hours of learning you can remember 90% of what you learned.  I use a computer program to keep all my notes together in one location where I can categorize then by subject and easily find them when I need them.

As always, questions, comments, and discussions welcome.


God, Morals, and Atheism

November 6, 2011

Over the last few weeks I have entered into the discussion of morals with a few atheists.  The subject of morals is a hot topic of late with the new atheists that are contending for an evolutionary answer to morals.  What I want to do through a series of posts is break down the moral debate and examine it from the Christian worldview and a naturalistic position.  After looking at both views I hope you will see that one side is coherent and the other side lacks the internal strength to stand on its on.  I will do my best not to give a strawman’s argument from the side of naturalism, but I should point out that there is a disagreement among naturalists in some of the areas concerning morals.  I will get into the specifics of the disagreements in the next post.

First before I give you the Christian worldview on morals I wanted to make a few concessions based on my Biblical beliefs about humanity and some misunderstandings that some may have about what the Bible says about humanity:

1. It is possible for all people on earth to be moral people regardless of their belief in God or not.
2. It is possible for all people to know and recognize morals as good and bad, loving and hateful, etc…
3. Christians are not far and away any better than atheists when it comes to morals. Christians can make right/wrong moral choices just as any human can.

Morals from the Biblical worldview:
In short, I believe that because God exists and created us in His image. (Genesis 1:27) all people have a moral code written on our hearts (Romans 2:10-16) and a free will to choose (Deuteronomy 30:19, Joshua 25:15, James 4:17) to do whatever our sinful nature desires (Romans 3:23). (Philosophically it would not make sense for God to give is commands that we had no choice but to follow anyway.) I do not see anywhere in real life that contradicts from the Biblical worldview of mankind according to the Bible. Because our morals come from God, a higher transcendent being, I believe that morals are objective and different shades of morals in cultures come from an either purposeful (Romans 1:18-20, 1 Timothy4:2) or ignorant deviation from God’s highest moral law. When looking back at the history of cultures, actions described in the Bible, and their different moral behaviors/acts, I believe it is the people who have chosen to go against the moral law of God and it is not that God changed his moral laws. For example on issues of slavery, racism, and murder we know that God’s laws have stood before the actions of people and their immoral actions. I believe that too many human actions are blamed on God when in fact they are humans who commit these acts. Unfortunately, many people are in error and often claim to speak for God and commit immoral acts from time to time. Lastly I believe that as followers of Christ grow in their understanding of who God is and his word in the Bible it shapes and allows us to change(2 Corinthians 5:17) how we see God’s moral laws. This is why you have a variety of followers of Christ that carry different beliefs.(you will find this in any worldview system, even atheism, people hold different beliefs.) They are slowly transforming (Romans 12:2) into the likeness of Christ. When we as Christians differ it is because we are no longer looking at God’s moral laws, but our own. We must also be careful not to make our subjective opinions absolute moral laws because of personal experiences and how we were nurtured.

As always, questions, comments, and discussions are welcome.


The Universe is Intelligently Designed

October 28, 2011

Recently we looked at the Teleological Argument in biology in DNA.  As we continue the discussion on the Teleological Argument, I wanted to look at design in the universe.  No matter if you are looking at the solar system or the entire universe you can see design and intelligence.

When you are looking for signs of intelligent design there are 3 key factors that you will need: Contingency, Complexity, and Specification.   If something were designed we would expect to see evidence of contingency.  (Meaning it did not result from a meaningless unintelligent process.)  If something were designed , we would expect to see evidence of complexity. (With many working parts) And if something were designed, we would expect to see evidence of specificity. (A detailed, precise pattern commonly associated with intelligent causes.)  Just as we can see those 3 factors in DNA, we can also see them within the universe.

There are two levels at which you can look at intelligent design in the universe.  First it seems that earth is fine-tuned  for life within the realm of our  solar system.  There are many razor-thin factors that make life on earth possible.   Here are a few examples of what I am referring to.

1. Temperature – The earth is the perfect distance from sun.  If the earth was any closer or further away to the sun, life on earth would be out of the temperature range and not contingent for life.

2. Size – The earth size, rotational speed, atmosphere, and tilt are just right for life to exist on the earth.  If it were slightly different we would not be able to sustain life on earth.

3.  The moon – Without a moon that causes tides aerating oceans and oxygen for fish & plankton sea life would not be able to exist.  The tides also clean the oceans of trash and contaminates.  During the months following the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico scientists watched carefully the raw crude oil that was in the water.  After about a year had gone by the ocean had self cleaned itself and life was returning back to normal.   The moon also acts as a shield protecting the earth from various space debris that come close to the earth in the solar system.

4. Water – Without water life would not exist.  When NASA sends spacecraft to other places within our solar system they look for the presence of water or ice.  Water covers about 70% of the surface of the earth.   In connection with the temperature and atmosphere the water cycle would not be possible and would not make plant and animal life possible on the land.

5. Oxygen – Oxygen is the most plentiful element on the earth.  It makes up about 90% of the earths total weight.   (In water and the atmosphere)  Oxygen is not only needed for animal life to breathe but in the upper atmosphere paired with a 3rd Oxygen molecule we have Ozone.  The Ozone layer helps protect the earth from harmful radiation from the sun.  You are probably familiar with oxygen and carbon-dioxide cycle, where plant life breathes in CO2 and give off O2.  Animal life breathes in O2 and breathes out CO2.  The earth had to be perfectly balanced between plant and animal life in order for both to survive.  This principle is called the Anthropic Principal.

6. Gravity – Gravity is the unexplained force in nature.  It is present all over the universe.  It controls the rotation of the planets around the sun and the rotation of the moons around the planets.  On a larger scale, it controls the movement of all the galaxies in the universe.  If Gravity was slightly different the sun would burn to fast and we not have a sun to heat the earth.

7. Lighting – Lightning happens on average about 100,000 times a day around the planet.  All plants need nitrogen as food to grow and when lightning strikes the earth it takes nitrogen from the air and deposits it in the soil.

8. Jupiter – Jupiter is the earth’s shield.  Because it is the largest planet in our solar system it acts similar to the moon as a shield protecting us from  comets, space debris, asteroids that may come in a path with the earth.  The large gravity of  Jupiter acts like a magnet and pulls these things towards Jupiter.

9. Galaxies – In order for life to be possible we must be in the right type of galaxy with the appropriate types of stars and heavenly bodies.  No only the right type of galaxy, but also the right place within the galaxy.

What happens when you try to assign a probability to all these factors.  Roger Penrose, professor at Oxford, says it is an impossibility because the number of digits would be greater than the total number of elementary particles in the know universe.  The level of precision dwarfs our human comprehension.

One objection to the idea that the solar system is fine-tuned and intelligently designed is that it only appears to be at the surface, but that evolution can explain for the illusion of design.  In other words, it only looks intelligently design, but in reality it is only how things have come to be.  Darwinian evolutionist say that just because we exist in the universe doesn’t mean that we are special and valued.They contend that if the tape of evolution were rewound through time that it is possible that something else may have evolved differently and they two would question there existence.  Too bad we don’t have access to that evolutionary tape.

Think about this example from apologist, Sean McDowell.  Imagine you purchase tickets to a football game.  Upon arrival at the stadium you find your seat and sit down to watch the game.  After talking for a while with your neighbors you slowly discover that everyone in your seat section is sitting in alphabetic order, and greater still after more investigation you learn that everyone in the whole stadium is seated alphabetically.  The uniqueness of this grand scheme demands an explanation.  Who did this?  Someone was playing with the computer perhaps?  Philosopher John Leslie uses a firing squad illustration.  Imagine you were standing before a firing squad of 50 gunmen.  The order is given to fire, but for some reason you are still alive and not shot.  Your survival demands an explanation and so does fine-tuning.

Another objection by atheist, Richard Dawkins who admits that there is no present natural explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe, but claims that hardly accounts for God.  Dawkins argues that accepting the design argument leads to “Who designed the designer?”  The problem with this argument is this, can science only accept things if they can explain them?  Or if they have explanations?  Science must come to a point that they accept what evidence they do have and deny the request for further proof.   For example; an archaeologist who finds a ancient object that looks like a arrow head or a tool for digging.  Even if she/he cannot explain the origin or the identity of the designer.  If the evidence for design is compelling she could not dismiss the design hypothesis.

Critics also argue that if the laws of physics were different then some other non-carbon based life form could have existed.  Besides being entirely speculative, many of the fine-tuning instances and arguments are not based or rely on being carbon-based.

This brings us to the second level at which you can look at intelligent design in the universe.  Why are the laws of physics defined as what they are?  Why is the expansion rate of the universe (the cosmological constant) what it is?  What about the 4 fundamental forces of nature?  (Gravity, Electromagnetic force, The strong and weak nuclear force)   Just as we see in DNA in life that there had to be a programmer to put in the code for life, where did the code for the laws of physics come from?

Darwinian evolutionists are trying to answer the intelligent design argument with the idea of the Multiverse or the Grand Design, which has been popularized by Stephen Hawking in his latest book entitled The Grand Design.  Using the standard model in physics and other theories, like string theory, they are attempting to take our universes laws of physics and show that it is basically nothing special in a realm where multiple universes exist.  Is your head hurting yet?  I will spend more time explaining this in a upcoming post.

As always, questions, comments, and discussions are welcome.


Why I believe Evolution is False

April 1, 2010

I will keep this short and spare you on some of the details.  If you would like the details I will be glad to send them to you or discuss them further.

Using the word FLAWED,  I would like to expound on 6 talking points that place a lot of doubt in Darwin’s theory of Evolution.  The idea came from Chris Sherrod, a friend and fellow student minister years ago.  Chris Sherrod also has written a chapter in the new book from Sean McDowell, called Apologetics for a New Generation.   I love using the acronym  and teaching it to students because of the ease of it to memorize. 

FOSSIL FALLACY – Darwin himself said that in order for the theory of evolution to hold weight that in order we must find proof in the fossils by what he called transitional fossils.  These are fossils that show us the process of evolution at work by finding fossils that are in transition from one form to the other.  Like half bird and lizard or also the half ape-man.  Well how many of these kinds of fossils have we found, Zero!!  Not one transitional fossil has been found yet and this throws great doubt on Darwin’s Theory.  Evolutionist have had to scramble around to try to find other theory’s to support their lack of evidence like “gap theory” which also brings more questions into the argument because it doesn’t fit the facts.

LAWS VIOLATED – In order for evolution to be true, it must break a few key laws of science.  The most important Law broken is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which states simply that over a period of time all complex systems go from a state of order to disorder.  That over time they breakdown and become less complicated.  Evolution states that everything we know came from a random “Big Bang” in the Universe and we slowly evolved into complex organisms over billions and billions of years.  Imagine taking all the parts of a wrist watch and placing them in a bag and shaking them up and they come together to form a nice new Rolex time piece.

Another Key law broken by evolution is the law of Biogenesis, which states that you can not create life from non-life.  Scientist have been trying this for decades and cannot break this law and create life in the laboratory but cannot.  You will never be able to get life from a granite molecule or life from other non-living matter.

The last law or principal is Cause and Effect.  Cause and Effect simply states that every effect has a cause.  similarly, every cause also is an effect of something else and also has a cause.   The cause is either a “what” or a “who”.  For example; what caused the vase to fall of the shelf?  The earthquake caused the vase to fall.  What caused the earthquake?  Was it the blasting of dynamite at the quarry next door or was it a real earthquake?  You can go on and on with layers of cause and effects.  What caused the earthquake?  Plate Tectonic movement, caused by the heat of the earths core, which is caused by the suns warming rays, etc…..  With respect to evolution, what caused the big bang that started the universe?  Even if you break matter down to its smallest form, to the sub-molecule level and start talking string theory and other new ideas, where did that come from?  Evolution has to answer 3 big bangs in reality not just 1.  The origin of matter, the origin of life, and the origin of conscience thought and a moral compass.

ABSENCE OF OBSERVATION – No one has ever saw evolution happen and there is no way to test it.  Let me point out the difference between Macro-evolution and Micro-evolution.  Macro evolution is the kind that Darwin wrote about.  It is the idea that we slowly evolved over billions of billions of years from a simple cell, primordial goo into fish and from fish to reptiles, from reptiles to birds and eventually other creations to primates to humans.  Micro-evolution also know as adaption is the faster process where in an organism, animal or plant change to adapt or survive from predators or climate.  We have seen and witnessed this process of micro-evolution, but this is not the same as Darwin’s theory of evolution.  Further more these adaptions have not gone from one species to another ie… snake to bird or fish to reptile.  Some examples of this, like the peppered-moth can be found in the section below under Erroneous examples.

WITHOUT A MECHANISM – Evolution has no purpose or reason.  Life cannot create itself and why would it desire to create itself for there is no reason behind all of the small details of the universe.  If there was life from the beginning, why would it need to evolve in the first place?  Why not just stay as the simple primordial ooze that it was.  We know that in nature there are mutations and with the process of Natural selection which we can see in nature, these mutations are harmful at best and most mutations  are eliminated by the process of natural selection and nature.

ERRONEOUS EXAMPLES – There have been many finding through out our history of so-called proof of evolution which have turned out to be false or cases where evolutionist thought or believed to be true without knowledge or fact.  Below are a few examples of many.

Peppered moth – got its name during the industrial revolution in England.  The moths were seen to change from a pure white color to a darker color and have spots that helped camouflage themselves from predators due to the rise of factories and smoke that came from them.  This is an example of microevolution and not macro-evolution.  Notice that the moth was still, a moth.  It didn’t change into a large bird or other species.  The process of Natural selection deems that the ones with spots were able to survive from predators better that the pure solid and lightly colored moths.  As the darker and spotted moths mated their kind and color began to increase as the others decreased.

The changes in the bone structure and skulls of people.  Much is made of height and other features, but in fact they are still human features not ape-men features.  Some finds have recently been under fire by scientist who believe that the few skeletal remains  found of curved or arched back bones were those of people who had a disease such as rickets.   We see people in our time today that have similar issues.

There are other examples such as the Archaeopteryx, Vestial Organs, Past ideas that fetuses had gills in utero, the list could go on but for the sake of time I will not.  Each had been thought of as further proof of evolution , but were found to be incorrect.

DESIGN & DNA – Can you imagine in all the evidence we have in the universe that it all was a random chance rather than a design set forth by a creator.  You can look at DNA and see the complex design and pattern of  life’s code.  DNA is some complex that it would make a computer program from Apple or Microsoft look like first grade math.  The DNA code in one single cell can hold as much information as the equivalent of 500 volumes of an encyclopedia.   The earth is finely turned to support life and if one detail of the earth was different in rotation, temperature, gravity, and etc…. Life would not be able to exist.  Try imagining a computer programing itself or a complicated invention like a watch or computer coming together all by itself.  Seems so crazy right, but if you don’t believe that God exist and created everything, then you have to believe that it all just is a random purposeless accident of chance.

I think it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God.  I really believe that the debate will go on for the next hundred and thousands of years without a single assurance that God created everything through a 6 day Biblical creation and the theory of evolution.  We may never know “for sure” to either side.   That’s when faith comes into play in the role of not having all the answers.  I hope that these points will cause you to think about what you do believe and why you believe it.  I will also follow-up this blog with another entry on why I do believe that there is a God in the near future.  As always I welcome your comments, questions, and opposing views.