The first reason is that evolution denies that God created the Earth. In Genesis 1:1 we read, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Scientists say that during a span of two hundred million years man developed from amino acids to the complex life form we know today. Such great periods of time can't be reconciled with the Biblical account. This brings me to the second reason why evolution can't be the explanation for our creation.
Scientists tell us that the Earth is some four and one half billion years old. They say that universe is around fifteen billion years old. Of course they have no possible way of determining this, but they seem determined to know all. This directly contradicts what the Bible says. In Genesis 1:5 we read, "And God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And there was evening, and there was morning, one day." In chapter 1:8, the Bible says, "And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening, and there was morning, a second day." The account goes on to describe the days in detail, ending with chapter 2:2, "And by the seventh day God completed His work which He had done; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done." In this account, a day equals one morning and one evening. There can be no mistaking this. Everywhere else in the Pentateuch, where the word day is used (as here with a numerical adjective), the day is one solar day. Not one theory of evolution supports the evolution of the species in seven days. Scientists are in direct contradiction with the Bible, a book Christians know to be faultless. Therefore, evolution is wrong.
A third reason why evolution is at fault and cannot be believed is its presupposition of spontaneous generation. Webster defines spontaneous generation as "the generation of living matter from non-living." There are several reasons why this couldn't have happened. One excellent reason deals with the complexity of DNA.
Higher organisms are composed of tremendous number of specialized cells, and within each cell is an intricate complex of specialized protein molecules. Each protein molecule is a particularly organized structure composed of about twenty different amino acids, and each amino acid is made up of the four elements hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon (in two cases a sulfur atom is also present).
These complex structures are all, in the case of every known organism, reproduced and assembled on the basis of the "instructions" built into the DNA molecular system. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is composed of six simpler molecules; these consist of four bases, the arrangement of which specifies the message, made up of nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and carbon, along with a deoxyribose sugar molecule and a phosphate molecule which hold the bases in place (Morris 47).
This shows how complex the DNA code is. This is no simple chemical that can be manufactured. To the contrary, there is no known process that can duplicate it.
The DNA molecule not only has information required for the synthesis of the specific protein molecules needed by the cell, but also that needed for its own replication. Thus reproduction and inheritance depend directly on this remarkable molecule, as organized differently and specifically for each kind of organism (Morris 47).
No creature can possibly reproduce without this code built into it. It is somewhat akin to the operating system on a computer. Without the operating system to tell the computer what means what, the computer is a useless piece of junk. It is the same with human bodies.
Thus, the problem of abiogenesis evolves upon the method of which the first replicating system evolved. The insuperable barrier, however, is that DNA can only be replicated with the specific help of certain protein molecules (enzymes) which, in turn, can only be produced at the direction of DNA. Each depends on the other and both must be present for replication to take place (Morris 47).
Here comes the truth. If this is so incredibly complex, could it have happened at all?
Really, it seems only special creation can account for the initiation of this process. Many serious investigators have recognized this problem (Morris 47).
O.K. That's the view of a Christian. What do the non- Christians say about this? Will they admit that the alternative, as gruesome as it may seem to them, is really God?
But the most sweeping evolutionary questions at the level of the biochemical genetics are still unanswered... The fact that in all organisms living today the processes both of replication of the DNA and of the effective translation of its code require highly precise enzymes and that, at the same time, the molecular structures of those same enzymes are precisely specified by the DNA itself, poses a remarkable evolutionary mystery (Morris 47).
Indeed it is a mystery. How could "A", through incredible means to say the least, come about at the same time as "B", in perfect timing to complement it?
Did the code and the means of the translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible that any such coincidence could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they be coordinated accurately for survival. By a pre-Darwinian (or a skeptic of evolution after Darwin) this puzzle surely would have been interpreted as the most powerful sort of evidence for special creation(Morris 47).
Or, in other words, it couldn't have happened. The complexity of life is such that there is no way life could have just "happened" without a God to create it.
A fourth reason why evolution is wrong is again, not theological, but scientific. To understand this reason, we need a brief review of the Laws of Thermodynamics. They are as follows:
1) The Law of conservation of mass/energy, or, nothing can be created, nothing can be destroyed.
2) The Law of increasing entropy, or, everything tends to decay.
Isaac Asimov, one of my heroes in the way of science fiction as well as a well-renowned scientist, put it this way,
As far as we know, all changes are in the direction of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, of running down (Morris 164).
This from a non-Christian who wholly believes in evolution! The fourth reason I have chosen as to why evolution couldn't have happened is the second law, that everything tends to decay, or increase in entropy. By this law,
If present processes continue to function into the indefinite future, eventually all energy will become useless, uniform, heat energy; all structures will have disintegrated into maximum disorder, their state of maximum probability; and all information will have become meaningless noise. The sun and stars will burn out, all processes will stop, and the universe will die an ultimate, 'heat death.' It will still exist (by the first Law), but will be dead (by the second Law) (Morris 167).
But evolutionists say that we have gone from an amoeba to what we now are. How can we reconcile this? We can't. There is no way evolution could have happened on the scale that is believed if the Laws of Thermodynamics are true, and these Laws are debated by none to be false.
Evolutionary theory depends heavily on mutation. They say that life, over millions and millions of years, mutated until we had come from the proverbial slime to functioning, thinking, rationalizing human beings. Key in this idea is mutation. Without it, evolution couldn't have happened. We as Christians, believe that mutations do occur, but not as extensively as scientists tout. In short, through natural selection, we can mutate horses into short horses, tall horses, skinny horses, fat horses but it all boils down to the fact that they are still horses. I would like, as the fifth reason, to show why extensive mutation couldn't have occurred. For one thing, mutations are extremely rare, about one in one hundred thousand. Those are pretty slim odds to base a world upon. And based upon it evolution is. Sir Julian Huxley, a respected spokesman for the evolutionary theory says that, "... mutation is the source of all heretable variation." In other words, it couldn't have happened any other way. Yet mutations are rarely good. As John J. Freid says in his book, The Mystery of Heredity,
We have to face one particular fact, one so peculiar that in the opinion of some people it makes nonsense out of the whole theory of evolution: Although the biological theory calls for the incorporation of beneficial varients in the living populations, a vast majority of the mutants observed in any organism are detrimental to its welfare. Some are lethal, causing incurable diseases or fatal deaths [sic]; others are sub-lethal, killing off or incapacitating most of the carriers but allowing some to escape; still others are sub-vital, damaging health, resistance or vigor in a variety of ways (Hall 24).
What Freid is saying, and what I agree with is that mutations are almost always harmful. Evolutionists say that mutation is responsible for transition from species to species. It just couldn't happen. Take, for example, the change from reptile to bird. Suppose that for some reason, whether radiation, or whatever, we have a lizard born with little nubs on his back. Do they immediately help him? No, they encumber him. He can not move as quickly as can his fellow lizards. Natural selection takes care of him; he becomes yet another crumpled skeleton. Suppose that our lizard was born straight out of his egg with wings (the Hopeful Monster Theory). He breaks open his egg and has developed wings. Just suppose. At any rate, he flaps his incredibly heavy body skyward, with his magnificently designed wings that just happened to come into being, and he is devoured by the predators that already rule the sky. Presto! No more winged lizards. Mutations would have to be immediately beneficial to even last; mutations such as longer necks (giraffe), webbed feet (duck), radar (bats), etc. It simply isn't possible to go completely from species to species. Furthermore, when mutations occur, they don't come complete. They come in partial substance. In other words, instead of a complete wing, we would see a strengthening of the breast bone. To even produce that would be incredibly difficult. In the words of Professor Simpson,
The chances of a multiple, simultaneous mu tation seems to be even smaller, indeed negligible. Postulations of a mutation rate of .00001 and of each mutation's doubling the chances of another in the same nucleus would correspond with the most favorable cir cumstances warrented by laboratory evidence. Under these postulates, the probability of five mutations in the same nucleus would be approximately 1 x 10 raised to the power of a -22 [.0000000000000000000001]. With an average effective breeding population of 100 million individuals and average length of generation one day, again extremely favorable postulates, such an event would be expected only once in about 274 billion years, or one hundred times the probable age of the Earth. Obviously, unless there is an unknown factor tremendously increasing the chance of simultaneous mutations, such a process has played no part whatever in evolution (Hall 27).
How then can scientists believe that it happened? They believe it because they have no alternative. They refuse God and must look to logical inconsitancies to support themselves.
And what about this whole business of natural selection, of "survival of the fittest." Is it true? It it a lie? Where does it fit in to the view of evolution? Well, when Darwin first came out with his theories, he was really only compiling the theories of others. A colleague of Darwin, Edward Blyth advanced the theory of natural selection. But not for the same reasons.
Blyth used the theory of natural selection not to explain how species can arise from pre- existing species (as Darwin does), but rather to explain how species remain constant. The action of selection, he thought, would serve to eliminate, not only monsters, but all deviants from the norm, all the abnormal types that arise from every population; and so it would make each species hold true to type, and stay fit to continue its existence within the given environment (Hall 33).
Darwin simply took Blyth's view, and flipped it, yet he never actually made reference to Blyth's work in any of his journals. He simply took an existing view and switched it. My sixth reason for not believing in evolution is because natural selection wouldn't have produced the results that scientists say. Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-founder of evolutionary theory, said, in reference to supposedly backward natives that had languages more complex than those of Europe, that, "their mental powers were far in excess of what they really needed to carry on the simple food gathering techniques by which they survive" (Hall, 35). In other words, they were too smart for the tasks they preformed. Wallace asked,
How then was an organ developed so far beyond the needs of its possessor? Natural selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of an ape, whereas he actually possesses one but little inferior to that of the average member of our learned societies (Hall 35).
Serious words. What then do scientists say now that the former standards of natural selection and mutation have been proved false? As George Gaylord Simpson so succinctly put it, "Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned." In other words, they don't know. Well, I know, it was God.
The last reason I'd like to give you to dispute evolution is that it disagrees with the fossil record. Fossils are, of course, the remains of plants and animals preserved in sedimentary form. There are many such examples, from everything to great dinosaurs to raindrops. Thousands of tons of fossils have been unearthed, yet in all those clods of dirt, not one fossil has been found that supports the link between one species and another. There is no link between man and ape, lizard and bird, or fish and frog. There is no transitional form. Why not? If the earth is as old as scientists say, and there are as many fossils as they say, and they have examples of so many types of living matter, then why doesn't the fossil record have even ONE example of a form that bridges the gap between ANY species? Darwin himself realized the problem and wrote the following:
... intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory" (of evolution) (Parker 93)
But did this bother Darwin? Nope. He just assumed that later generations would find "missing links" somewhere. It has been about 120 years since then and no one has turned up anything yet. In fact, the fossil record is even less certain today then then. David Roup, the curator for the Field Museum of Natural History here in Chicago said,
Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded ... ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information" (Parker 95).
Why do they still persist in believing something that has had so many of its key beliefs shattered? They believe because they can't accept the alternative.
True science proposes a theory, then seeks to disprove it. Evolutionary science has an idea and then seeks to prove it true. This is backward to what true science should be. Brilliant scientists, scholars, and men teach this intellectual drivel to kids in school, not realizing that the whole idea is completely false. It is a tragedy, because the people these kids look up to, teachers, parents and such, only teach them the theory because they have no "logical" alternative. They weave themselves a web of intricate technical terminology trying to hide the fact that all they really need is God.
Bibliography
Custance, Arthur C. Evolution or Creation. Grand Rapids,
The Zondervan Corporation, 1976.
Hall, Marshall and Sandra. The Truth: God or Evolution?
Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 1975.
Hoover, Arlie J. Fallacies of Evolution. Grand Rapids,
Baker Books, 1977.
Meldau, Fred John, Why We Believe in Creation Not in
Evolution. Denver, Christian Victory Publishing
Company,1959.
Morris, Henry M. What is Creation Science? San Diego,
Creation-Life Publishers, 1982.