The Fallacies of Evolution
Determining the truth about evolution is essential to responding intelligently when this subject is brought up in your conversations with friends. What are the facts that must be addressed?
Evolution is not a scientifically testable theory, because it cannot be tested by the scientific method. The scientific method requires that you: (1) Observe a problem or a question to be studied (2) Make a hypothesis (a possible explanation) (3) Design repeatable experiments to test the hypothesis (4) Make observations from the experiments (5) Collect data (6) Form conclusions to support or reject the hypothesis (7) Continue testing new hypothesis if conclusions reject original hypothesis.
Neither creation nor evolution has been observed by anyone, and therefore, cannot be repeated by an experiment. Therefore, there are insufficient facts to form a truly scientific hypothesis as to the origin of the different species of animals or of man himself.
Question: If the scientific method requires observable and repeatable evidence that can be tested, how can evolution be considered a scientific fact or even a theory? Isn’t the hypothesis of evolution men simply guessing about how we got here?
Common sense and scientific logic demand that a person must reject the concept that a “big bang” created all living things, and the resulting order and complexity of our universe. No one has ever observed, through an experiment, an explosion that has created life or resulted in creating order. Common sense reveals that a stick of dynamite in a lumber yard would never result in a complex building. Looking at the results of the explosion at Mt. St. Helen’s and the resulting destruction, it seems illogical to believe in the big bang hypothesis as creating anything that brings order.
Question: Those who believe in evolution must be able to give you other examples of experiments where life has been created by an explosion. Are there any examples of experiments where order has been created by an explosion? How can the “big bang” be considered a scientific theory when this explosion was not observed, neither can it be repeated?
Science today wants you to believe that life was created from dead matter. This is a theory called “Spontaneous Generation” and it was rejected in the 1600s because of the experiments of the Italian scientist Francesco Redi. People of that day believed that maggots were created from decaying meat. Redi disproved spontaneous generation by doing experiments where he repeatedly covered one portion of meat left outside, and left other portions of meat open to the air. He observed that the maggots only resulted on the meat left in the open air where flies had deposited their eggs. The belief in spontaneous generation still continued until French chemist Louis Pasteur finally settled the issue in the mid-1800s. He discovered that even the smallest amounts of bacteria do not arise spontaneously, but always grow from other bacteria, proving that living organisms always come from other living organisms. To believe that life spontaneously resulted from dead matter, because of an electrical charge from some unknown source, is to return to this false concept of spontaneous generation.
Question: How can science teach that life began from dead matter? Isn’t this a return to the disproved theory of spontaneous generation? Isn’t it scientifically provable that living organisms only come from other living organisms?
Evolution contradicts the scientifically proven fact of the Law of Entropy (The Second Law of Thermodynamics). The Law of Entropy states that all matter tends to lose available energy, as it is converted from one form to another, and as this energy is converted it moves toward decay, disorder, and disorganization. (Example: The energy produced by burning wood converts the wood to ashes). As any work is performed there is a loss of energy (increasing the entropy within a system) until the system can no longer perform that work (you can’t burn the ashes again). Henry Morris calls entropy “the universal law of decreasing complexity.” Evolution is teaching the opposite, an increasing complexity of matter. Evolution teaches that when matter is performing work (evolving), this matter is moving toward greater order, complexity, and organization. Both concepts cannot be true.
Dr. Duane Gish states, “The fact that the universe, in its present state is deteriorating, has been fully verified by modern science. Everywhere we look, from the scale of the galaxies down to the scale of the atom, we find a universal, natural tendency of all systems to go from order to disorder; from complexity to simplicity. Thus, clusters of galaxies are dispersing as the galaxies move away from one another.
The rotation of the earth is slowing; the magnetic field of the earth is decaying. Erosion constantly wears down the features of the earth. Our bodies wear out; we die and decay to a pile of dust. Our houses, our machines wear out and are finally abandoned and replaced. Many atoms decay to simpler products, and it is even being postulated that sub-atomic particles, such as the proton, decay, though ever so slowly, into energy.
Each star, including our own sun, is constantly burning up billions of tons of fuel every second. Eventually, every star in the universe, unless God intervenes (which we are certain He will), will exhaust its fuel and become dark and cold. The universe would then be cold and dead, and, of course, all life would have ceased long before the last death throes of the universe. Even now, every so often a nova or supernova occurs, and a star very rapidly becomes less orderly, in a gigantic explosion.
This natural tendency towards disorder is so all-pervasive and unfailing that it has been formalized as a natural law - the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Isaac Asimov has stated it this way (Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p.6): "Another way of stating the second law then is: `The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way, we can see the Second Law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself, it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out - all by itself - and that is what the Second Law is all about.
There is certainly no doubt, then, that modern scientific research has verified the truths expressed in Psalm 102:26. Many years of careful measurements by scientists, repeated many thousands of times, established beyond doubt the scientific truths expressed in that verse of Scripture.”
Question: Doesn’t evolution contradict the Law of Entropy? How can an established law of science be contradicted by the weak hypothesis of evolution?
One glaring problem with the hypothesis of evolution is the fact that there are no examples of transitional forms in the fossil record as proof that evolution has occurred. A transitional form means that you should see the conversion of a (fish into an amphibian, or an ape into a man) in the fossil record. You should see one species transitioning into a new species. This of course would be powerful and essential evidence to prove evolution. Even Charles Darwin wrote in his Origin of the Species (see chapter 6 “Difficulties with the Theory”) that these transitional forms had to be found to prove his ideas. The fact is that there have been no transitional forms found to date from literally billions and billions of fossils already unearthed should cause anyone to pause and think, why. However, the fossils do reveal that all highly complex forms of life abruptly show up in the fossil record, without evolutionary ancestors (transitional forms). Therefore, evolutionists have come up with a cleaver solution to this problem. To get around the problem of the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, modern anthropologists have come up with a new hypothesis called Graduated Equilibrium. This supposed explanation teaches that the species didn’t gradually evolve, but evolved from one species to another in giant steps, so there would be no transitional forms in the fossil record. There is no evidence to support this idea either.
Note the actual evidence that anthropologists base their beliefs upon: Pictures cover the walls of every science classroom in America depicting the transition of apes to men. Here is the actual evidence. You decide if this is science or wishful thinking that leads people to draw these pictures?
1. Ramapithecus: Thought by many evolutionists to be the first hominid. Based on a handful of teeth and jaw fragments.
2. Australopithecus: Several of these creatures have been found in various parts of the world. Partial skulls with pelvis, a limb, and foot fragments. These creatures are thought to be similar to gorillas with a cranial capacity averaging 500c.c. or less (1/3 the size of man), with ape-like jaws and teeth.
3. Pithecanthropus erectus (Java Man): A scull-cap and two molar teeth were found with a human femur bone.
4. Sinathropus pekinensis (Peking Man): Fragments of about 30 sculls, 11 lower jaws, 147 teeth, and a few highly fragmentary remains of several limb bones. All of this material was lost during the Second World War.
5. Neanderthal Man: Today thought by most anthropologists to be fully human.
Question: Why are there no transitional forms found in the fossil record? Doesn’t this disprove the hypothesis of evolution? What evidence is there for graduated equilibrium? Why should we believe these teachings when there is no evidence for them, this seems highly unscientific? If a hypothesis can’t be tested then it isn’t science. How can these pictures on the wall be an honest depiction of what these creatures looked like when there is such little evidence provided?