APOLOGETICS – Problems With The Theory Of Evolution

APOLOGETICS – Problems With The Theory Of Evolution

In popular media the impression is given that the theory of evolution has been unequivocally proven. Not only is this not the case, but scientific developments in recent decades have seriously undermined much of the evidence previously used to support the theory. The reality is that the theory of evolution is in serious trouble today, and there is a growing number of respected scientists who are abandoning the theory in favour of a more theistic explanation for the origin of the universe. The average person on the street would not be aware of this trend, because the significant problems in the theory are not being discussed in popular media. At academic levels, however, the serious flaws in the theory are beginning to emerge.

In recent years, a large number of academic tomes have been published discussing these flaws. One such work is “ More than Myth” (Chartwell Press, 2014, Editors: Robert Stackpole and Paul Brown). Of particular significance is the chapter, “Top 10 Scientific Problems With Biological and Chemical Evolution” by Casey Luskin. Below is a brief summary of the 10 problems suggested by Luskin.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

1.Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information. Related to this are problems with the Darwinian mechanism producing irreducibly complex features, and the problems of non-functional or deleterious intermediate stages. (For details see: “The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information,” “Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum,” “Opening Darwin’s Black Box,” or “Can Random Mutations Create New Complex Features? A Response to TalkOrigins“);

2.The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution. (For details, see “Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record” or “Intelligent Design Has Scientific Merit in Paleontology“);

3.The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand “tree of life.” (For details, see: “A Primer on the Tree of Life“);

4.Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient;

5.The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant — at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely. (For details, see “Convergent Genetic Evolution: ‘Surprising’ Under Unguided Evolution, Expected Under Intelligent Design” and “Dolphins and Porpoises and…Bats? Oh My! Evolution’s Convergence Problem“);

6.The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code. (For details, see “The origin of life remains a mystery” or “Problems with the Natural Chemical ‘Origin of Life’“);

7.The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development. (For details, see: “Evolving views of embryology,” “A Reply to Carl Zimmer on Embryology and Developmental Biology,” “Current Textbooks Misuse Embryology to Argue for Evolution“);

8.The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species. (For details, see “Sea Monkey Hypotheses Refute the NCSE’s Biogeography Objections to Explore Evolution” or “Sea Monkeys Are the Tip of the Iceberg: More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism“);

9.A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called “junk” DNA. (For details, ] see: “Intelligent Design and the Death of the ‘Junk-DNA’ Neo-Darwinian Paradigm,” “The Latest Proof of Evolution: The Appendix Has No Important Function,” or “Does Darrel Falk’s Junk DNA Argument for Common Descent Commit ‘One of the Biggest Mistakes in the History of Molecular Biology’?);

10.Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe).

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

These are just a few of the many significant problems now facing the theory of evolution.  For example, in his recent book, “Evolution Impossible”, Dr John F Ashton suggests “12 reasons why evolution can’t explain the origin of life on earth”. His top 10 reasons are:

  1. The Impossibility of a living cell arising by chance
  2. Random mutations can’t produce new type of organisms
  3. The failure of the evolutionary fossil record
  4. The complete absence of evolutionary intermediaries
  5. Geological evidence for a catastrophic global flood
  6. Historic evidence for a worldwide flood
  7. Erosion rates, sedimentation rates and other evidence for a young earth
  8. Problems with radiometric dating
  9. Cosmological evidence does not support the Big Bang theory
  10. The growing number of respected scientists who are abandoning the theory of evolution.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

These and other significant problems are leading a growing number of the world’s leading scientists to either abandon or seriously question the theory of evolution. The book, “In Six Days”, edited by Dr John F Ashton, has 50 chapters, each written by a different, high profile Ph.D. scientist. Each contributing scientist provides extensive scientific arguments for their view that the theory of evolution is no longer scientifically tenable, and explains the growing scientific evidence supporting theistic creation.

The contributing scientists are highly regarded internationally, and come from a wide range of fields including biology, chemistry, biochemistry, genetics, physics, zoology, astronomy, meteorology, engineering and botany.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The PowerPoint resource, AP9  Problems With The Theory Of Evolution, explains in detail many of the scientific flaws in the theory of evolution. It is worth mentioning a couple of them briefly in this article.

THE FAILURE OF THE EVOLUTIONARY FOSSIL RECORD

PROF.  ROBERTO FONDI, Professor of Paleontology at the University of Seaella, Italy comments, “The fundamental assumptions upon which evolution is based are not at all confirmed by paleontology. All the biological groups, from bacteria to humans, appear abruptly in the fossil record, without any links connecting them. If evolution had really happened, the evidence would be in abundance and incontestable. The museums would be overflowing with exhibits clearly documenting the transitions between various biological groups. But the fact is that after nearly two centuries of intense research, there are NO such exhibits. The very few fossils once claimed to be some kind of evolutionary link, such as the amphibians Ictheostica and Simorea, the bird Archaeopteryx, and the Australopithecene ape Homohabilis, are, at best, highly questionable.”

Regarding Aychaeopteryx, one of the most heralded supposed “missing links, the  Encyclopedia Of Evolution, by Dr. Stanley A. Rice (published 2007) states, “Modern birds are not the descendants of Archaeopteryx, which has proved to be an evolutionary dead end. Birds diversified well before Archaeopteryx …” (page 400). Similarly, the Berkeley University website states, “It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles. However, its feathers, wings, furcula (“wishbone”) and reduced fingers are all now acknowledged as being characteristics of some modern birds.” (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html) 

In terms of so-called human evolution, the original missing links have now all been disproved; homohabilis, hesperopithecus, Java Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Neanderthal Man and, more lately, Lucy (Australopithecus). These have all proven to be either hoaxes by fanatical atheists or false hopes.

The chain in the supposed monkey to man evolution currently looks like this:

THERE IS NOT A SINGLE, UNCONTESTED TRANSITIONAL FORM IN EXISTENCE!

The Smithsonian Museum in Washington DC is the premier museum in America, and used to have the largest evolutionary displays in the world. It is regarded as the Head Office of Evolution. It used to have an exhibit called “Origin Of Life” (apes to man). The display was eventually closed down, in the 1980’s, and a sign was placed outside it reading, “A lot has happened since this exhibit opened in 1974. The science of human evolution is a fast changing field. Much of the material here is now out of date. We are developing a new exhibit based on the latest findings.” Guess what? It never reopened.

In 1999, Colin Patterson, one of the worlds leading evolutionary paleontologists, based at the British Museum of Natural History, wrote the landmark book, “Evolution”. In it he failed to mention a SINGLE evolutionary transitional form. When a Christian scientist, Luther D. Sunderland, wrote and asked why he had failed to mention any transitional forms, Patterson wrote back, saying, ““I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evidence of evolutionary transitional forms. If I knew of any (either fossil or living) I would certainly have included them in my book. I’ll lay it on the line – there is NOT ONE SUCH FOSSIL for which there is a watertight argument.” This now famous quote has severely embarrassed evolutionists, and Patterson, under pressure from the atheist movement, has subsequently tried to qualify his original comment.

If evolution was true, we should expect to find MILLIONS of transitional forms all over the earth. Yet there is not one such transitional fossil! As Prof. E.H. Andrews states, “The fossil record now constitutes a severe embarrassment to the theory of evolution.”

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

THE PROBLEM OF IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY

Even the simplest cell is full of hundreds of molecular machines, each of which is comprised of dozens of independent parts, formed by the construction of DNA and RNA chains, each of which was constructed by other molecular machines inside the cell. And all of these machines have to exist simultaneously in order for a single cell to be alive. The simplest of cells is unbelievable complex!  Evolutionary theory has no way of explaining how hundreds of molecular machines could spring into existence simultaneously in order to create the first living cell.

Charles Darwin once stated;

Dr. Michael Behe,  Professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Centre for Science and Culture, states;

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

THE GENETIC IMPOSSIBILITY OF EVOLUTION

PROF. GUISEPPE SERMONTE, an Italian biochemist, geneticist, and molecular biologist states, “Recent discoveries in molecular biology have deeply undermined the theory of evolution. The claim of evolution – that mutations are retained and strengthened by natural selection – is not true. What natural selection does is eliminate genetic mutations…” 

PROF. MACKI GIERTYCHE, professor of genetics, Toran University, Poland, states,

“”The differing varieties within each species come from  re-combination – from the mixing and concentrating of genes during sexual reproduction. This is not mutation, for they are simply drawing upon the gene pool already present in the species and concentrating different combinations of genes in the different varieties. Some people claim this to be an example of  micro-evolution, and that through this ongoing process a new biological species can arise. This is not so! All that has happened is that some genes have been segregated out from the population, and that the resulting variety is impoverished – it  is poorer in gene content. No new genes have been formed – and if there are no new genes, there is no potential for new organs;  they are just a different variety of the same species….”

In Nov 1980, at the Natural History Museum in Chicago, a large number of the world’s leading geneticists and other scientists held a seminar to consider the issue of whether the small changes in varieties, sometimes referred to as “micro-evolution”, lead to the big changes necessary for Darwinian evolution. The findings of the conference were reported in the next issue of “Science” magazine, which stated, “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying micro-evolution can be extrapolated to explain the supposed phenomena of macro-evolution. At the risk of doing violence to the opinions of some of the scientists at the meeting, the answer was a clear “No”. ”

As Dr. Ken Ham states, “If they had known about genetics in Darwin’s day, the theory of evolution would never have gotten off the ground.”

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

CONCLUSION

Over the last two decades, in response to the mounting scientific evidence contradicting the theory of evolution, many of the world’s leading scientists began to call for a symposium to determine the ongoing validity of the theory. As a response, in 2002, an international organisation of scientists was formed, called CESHE, headquartered in France. It was a voluntary organisation of the world’s leading scientists, whose purpose was to determine whether the theory of evolution can still be considered as a valid scientific theory.

After a period of intense scrutiny and rigorous evaluation of all the evidence, this was their conclusion:

 “The theory of evolution is not supported by science. Many scientists have accepted the theory because they assume it to be an established scientific fact. Those scientists who have investigated it, however, find that evolution is a belief, not a science.” (C.E.S..H.)

In his book, “God, Science and Evolution”, Prof. E.H. Andrews wrote,

“Speaking as a scientist, I believe that in another 20 years the theory of evolution will have been totally discredited, purely on scientific grounds. The enormous gaps in the theory are beginning to emerge – not, of course, in the popular versions of evolution, but in the findings of scientists who are studying these matters at depth…. The popular impression is given that evolution is scientifically proven. This view is terribly biased and ignores the yawning chasms in the theory which make it unacceptable to me as a scientist.”


PowerPoint Presentations:

AP9  Problems With The Theory Of Evolution


Instructions For Downloading PowerPoint Presentations: Click the PowerPoint link, then click the “Open” drop down box at the top right of the screen and select “Open in PowerPoint Online” or “Open In PowerPoint”. When the presentation is opened, click the “Notes” tab at the bottom right of screen. This will open the Presenter Notes, which provide a detailed explanation of each slide. Some slides also have embedded video content, which can be viewed via the standard “play” button or by clicking the image.