If so, then provide an answer to the following
questions. "Evolution" in this context is the idea that
natural, undirected processes are sufficient
to account for the existence of all natural things.
1.Something from nothing?
The "Big Bang", the
most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe, states that
everything developed
from a small dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation which
exploded, forming hydrogen
(and some helium) gas. Where did this energy/matter come
from? How reasonable
is it to assume it came into being from nothing? And even if it did
come into being, what
would cause it to explode?
We know from common experience
that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder.
How reasonable is it
to assume that a "big bang" explosion produced the opposite effect -
increasing "information",
order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and
planets, and eventually
people?
2.Physical laws an accident?
We know the universe
is governed by several fundamental physical laws, such as
electromagnetic forces,
gravity, conservation of mass and energy, etc. The activities of our
universe depend upon
these principles like a computer program depends upon the existence
of computer hardware
with an instruction set. How reasonable is it to say that these great
controlling principles
developed by accident?
3.Order from disorder?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
may be the most verified law of science. It states that
systems become more
disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create
order. Evolutionists
says that the opposite has taken place - that order increased over time,
without any directed
energy. How can this be?
ASIDE: Evolutionists
commonly object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated
systems, and that the
Earth is certainly not a closed system (it gets lots of raw energy from
the
Sun, for example). However,
all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For
example, living organisms
are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in
total is a closed system.
To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into the
human brain with its
120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law.
We should also point out that
the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far
from sufficient condition
for a local decrease in entropy to occur. Certainly the application of
a
blow torch to bicycle
parts will not result in a bicycle being assembled - only the careful
application of directed
energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan. The
presence of energy from
the Sun does NOT solve the evolutionist's problem of how
increasing order could
occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.
4.Information from Randomness?
Information theory states
that "information" never arises out of randomness or chance events.
Our human experience
verifies this every day. How can the origin of the tremendous increase
in information from
simple organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always
introduced from the
outside. It is impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual
information, or meaning,
which is what evolutionists claim has happened. Random typing might
produce the string "dog",
but it only means something to an intelligent observer who has
applied a definition
to this sequence of letters. The generation of information always requires
intelligence, yet evolution
claims that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a
human being whose many
systems contain vast amounts of information.
5.Life from dead chemicals?
Evolutionists claim
that life formed from non-life (dead chemicals), so-called "abiogenesis",
even though it is a
biological law ("biogenesis") that life only comes from life. The probability
of the simplest imaginable
replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has
been calculated to be
so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in
the number of electron-sized
particles that could fit in the entire visible universe! Given these
odds, is it reasonable
to believe that life formed itself?
6.Complex DNA and RNA by chance?
The continued existence
(the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA (the "plan") and RNA
(the "copy mechanism"),
both of which are tremendously complex. How reasonable is it to
believe that these two
co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the
same time?
7.Life is complex.
We know and appreciate
the tremendous amount of intelligent design and planning that went
into landing a man on
the moon. Yet the complexity of this task pales in comparison to the
complexity of even the
simplest life form. How reasonable is it to believe that purely natural
processes, with no designer,
no intelligence, and no plan, produced a human being.
8.Where are the transitional fossils?
If evolution has taken
place our museums should be overflowing with the skeletons of
countless transitional
forms. Yet after over one hundred years of intense searching only a small
number of transitional
candidates are touted as proof of evolution. If evolution has really taken
place, where are the
transitional forms? And why does the fossil record actually show all
species first appearing
fully formed, with most nearly identical to current instances of the
species?
ASIDE: Most of the examples
touted by evolutionists concentrate on just one feature of the
anatomy, like a particular
bone or the skull. A true transitional fossil should be intermediate in
many if not all aspects.
The next time someone shows you how this bone changed over time,
ask them about the rest
of the creature too!
Many evolutionists still
like to believe in the "scarcity" of the fossil record. Yet simple statistics
will show that given
you have found a number of fossil instances of a creature, the chances
that you have missed
every one of its imagined predecessors is very small. Consider the
trilobites for example.
These fossils are so common you can buy one for under $20, yet no
fossils of a predecessor
have been found!.
9.Could an intermediate even survive?
Evolution requires the
transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don't forget that
"natural selection"
is supposed to retain those individuals which have developed an advantage
of some sort. How could
an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive
(and why would it ever
be selected for), when it would not be well-suited to either its old
environment or its new
environment? Can you even imagine a possible sequence of small
changes which takes
a creature from one kind to another, all the while keeping it not only
alive, but improved?
ASIDE: Certainly a "light-sensitive
spot" is better than no vision at all. But why would such a
spot even develop? (evolutionists
like to take this for granted). And even if it did develop, to
believe that mutations
of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of
the human eye strains
all common sense and experience.
10.Reproduction without reproduction?
A main tenet of evolution
is the idea that things develop by an (unguided) series of small
changes, caused by mutations,
which are "selected" for, keeping the "better" changes" over a
very long period of
time. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to
reproduce? Can you even
imagine a theoretical scenario which would allow this to happen?
And why would evolution
produce two sexes, many times over? Asexual reproduction would
seem to be more likely
and efficient!
ASIDE: To relegate the
question of reproduction to "abiogenesis" does NOT address the
problem. To assume existing,
reproducing life for the principles of evolution to work on is a
HUGE assumption which
is seldom focused on in popular discussions.
11.Plants without photosynthesis?
The process of photosynthesis
in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive
unless it already possessed
this remarkable capability?
12.How do you explain symbiotic relationships?
There are many examples
of plants and animals which have a "symbiotic" relationship (they
need each other to survive).
How can evolution explain this?
13.It's no good unless it's complete.
We know from everyday
experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete,
whether it be a car,
a cake, or a computer program. Why would natural selection start to
make an eye, or an ear,
or a wing (or anything else) when this item would not benefit the
animal until it was
completed?
ASIDE: Note that even
a "light-sensitive spot" or the simplest version of any feature is far
from a "one-jump" change
that is trivial to produce.
14.Explain metamorphosis!
How can evolution explain
the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the caterpillar evolves
into the "mass of jelly"
(out of which the butterfly comes), wouldn't it appear to be "stuck"?
15.It should be easy to show evolution.
If evolution is the
grand mechanism that has produced all natural things from a simple gas,
surely this mechanism
must be easily seen. It should be possible to prove its existence in a
matter of weeks or days,
if not hours. Yet scientists have been bombarding countless
generations of fruit
flies with radiation for several decades in order to show evolution in
action
and still have only
produced ... more (deformed) fruit flies. How reasonable is it to believe
that
evolution is a fact
when even the simplest of experiments has not been able to document it?
ASIDE: The artificial
creation of a new species is far too small of a change to prove that true
"macro-evolution" is
possible. A higher-order change, where the information content of the
organism has been increased
should be showable and is not. Developing a new species
changes the existing
information, but does not add new information, such as would be needed
for a new organ, for
example.
16.Complex things require intelligent design
folks!
People are intelligent.
If a team of engineers were to one day design a robot which could
cross all types of terrain,
could dig large holes, could carry several times its weight, found its
own energy sources,
could make more robots like itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we
would marvel at this
achievement. All of our life's experiences lead us to know that such a
robot could never come
about by accident, or assemble itself by chance, even if all of the
parts were available
laying next to each other. And we are certain beyond doubt that a
canister of hydrogen
gas, no matter how long we left it there or what type of raw energy we
might apply to it, would
never result in such a robot being produced. But we already have
such a "robot" - it
is called an "ant", and we squash them because they are "nothing"
compared to people.
And God made them, and he made us. Can there be any other
explanation?
(The preceeding information was derived from the
Creation Science Institute. )