There are many arguments against atheistic evolution. Here are our favorites.
A visitor wrote: “Thank you for being a small voice clarifying the real issues behind the evolutionary debate. The greatest problem I see is the confusion between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Anything beyond micro-evolution is merely a belief system.”
Three problems for atheistic evolutionists
Evolutionists who reject God and miracles have three huge problems to explain.
Problem No. 1
How did the universe come about?
There is no scientific law that allows something to evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear.
Atheistic evolutionists often try to duck this problem by saying that evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, only how life progressed after it appeared. But if you can't get something from nothing, it's pointless thinking you can accurately explain the next step. Juggle the figures any way you like, but without a Creator you are not going to get anything, let alone everything.
For more information on the origin of the universe, see Models of the origin of the universe, by Dr. John Rankin.
Problem No. 2
How could living creatures come from non-life?
No scientific law can account for non-living things’ coming to life. The non-living soil in your garden didn't turn into living trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other living trees and flowers.
Atheistic evolutionists have long believed that at some time in the distant past, life arose from non-living substances. British biologist T.H. Huxley in 1869 and physicist John Tyndall in 1874 were early promoters of the idea that life could be generated from inorganic chemicals.
But biology has found no law to support this idea, and much against it. The invariable observation is that only living things give rise to other living things. Life could not begin if God and miracles took no part!
For more information on abiogenesis (the theory that contends organisms originated from non-living material), see the CreationWiki article, Abiogenesis.
See also Origin of Life questions and answers, by Answers in Genesis.
Problem No. 3
How could new genetic information arise?
There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it.
To show that all life evolved from a single cell, which itself came from some type of chemical soup, there would have had to be massive genetic information gains.
But evolutionists have failed to show how this gain of new information occurred. Where did the information come from for the first bristles, stomachs, spines, intestines, complex blood circulation systems, intricate mouthpieces to strain special foods out of the water, and so on, when these are not found in the ancestral species?
The theory of evolution teaches that simple life-forms evolved into more complex life-forms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection.
But mutations and natural selection do not show gain in information, just rearrangement or loss of what is already there — therefore there may be beneficial mutations without an increase in genetic information.
Mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents. (See our article on TNR, the Totally Naked Rooster.) And natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures. Natural selection may explain why light-colored moths in England decreased and dark moths proliferated (because during the industrial revolution the light moths on dark tree trunks were more easily seen and eaten by birds), but it cannot show that moths could ever turn into effective, totally different, non-moth creatures. Moths do not have the genetic information to evolve into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them.
For more information on macroevolution, see the CreationWiki articles Macroevolution and Macroevolution has never been observed.
See also Speciation Questions and Answers by Answers in Genesis.
We believe that the evidence is stronger for those who believe the Bible's account of creation — that in the beginning God created the world and all the major types of creatures to reproduce “after their kind”.
Related topics:
- Human babies born with tails are not evidence for evolution.
- Pests and germs do not evolve resistance to poisons and antibiotics.
- Human embryos do not retrace the stages of evolution.
- Why dogs and finch beaks don't prove evolution.
- Could God have created using evolution?
- Is evolution a fact, like gravity?
- Why does evolution breed tyrants?
| Main page || Creation Tips || Teen Topics || Crystal Clear Creation || DinosaurCam || Games || News archives || News |
Email: creationmail@creationtips.ws
Website: www.creationtips.ws
Copyright © Creation Tips and its
licensors. All rights reserved.
Rated
by Internet Content Rating Association