The Theory of Evolution is not scientific, nor is the Theory of Special Creation. "That of which there is no physical causes before an absolute beginning is outside the realm of science" (10). These theories also do not fit into the Scientific Method. In order for a theory to be scientific, it must 1) Be observable. 2) Be explainable through a hypothesis. 3) Be testable in a controlled environment. 4) Be able to give repeatable results. Evolution has never been observed, cannot be tested, and does not give repeatable results. Ergo, Evolution is not scientific.
In fact, "the bulk of scientific data actually argues against evolution." (14) Even Charles Darwin admitted that his theory was questionable. "Even Darwin had difficulty coming to terms with the idea that something as elaborate as an eye could be created by natural selection" (4). "To suppose that the eye…could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree." (Charles Darwin) "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Charles Darwin, On the Origins of the Species) As explained in more detail throughout this website, many "complex organs" cannot "possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications." Most, if not all, organs in the human body alone are "irreducibly complex," meaning that they would not be able to function if they were any simpler (17). Darwin also called these anomalies "organs of extreme perfection," implying the difficulty of such a thing evolving from natural selection (4).
If a theory is considered scientific, it would also be fair to assert that such a theory should be accurate. The Theory of Evolution has been embarrassed repeatedly, yet is still considered to be "science" by the general population. For example, a human skull was found in Europe in May, 1984. Evolutionists hailed it as the oldest human fossil on the continent. Unfortunately, this fossil was later proved to be a four-month-old donkey skull (12).
Evolution has been called "the opposite of science," (11) in that it contradicts not only the Scientific Method, but also common sense. The following are just a few logical problems Evolution, as a theoretical concept, tends to ignore.
Nothing can come from nothing.
Molecules-to-Man Evolution is statistically, scientifically, and mathematically impossible. In science, if something has a one in 10^50 chance or greater of happening, it is considered impossible.
Keep in mind that evolutionists say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. That's a 45 with a mere eight zeros, not even close to the 119,841 zeros needed for Evolution to "have a shred of credibility" (5). To put these numbers into perspective, assuming the universe is 4.5 billion years old, it is only 10^18 seconds old.
Evolution not only contradicts the Scientific Method, but many other scientific theories and findings.
Darwin's theory states that "prebiotic soup," a primordial mix of amino acids, began life. However, there is a problem with this theory. Amino acids are nitrogenous. Therefore, "scientists should find deposits of nitrogen-rich minerals in early sediments of earth" (17). This is not the case:
"The nitrogen content of early organic matter is relatively low- just .015 percent. From this we can be reasonably certain that there never was any substantial amount of 'primitive soup' on Earth when pre-Cabrian sediments were formed." -Jim Brooks, geochemist
"Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence." -Michael Denton, geneticist
DNA is also extremely complicated and unstable. The information contained in the chromosomes of one human being, if typed out, would fill enough books to fill the Grand Canyon 40 times, and, "incidentally, the extreme instability of DNA is actually a huge problem for theories of the origin of life from a primordial soup" (16). In addition, "there is no attraction or bonding between the individual letters themselves" (14).
Clearly, DNA is a huge contradiction to Particles-to-People evolution, especially since "evolution always works by adapting structures that already exist." Since these building blocks were supposedly already formed, Evolutionists have no way to explain the basic origins of life.
In addition, DNA should provide the most basic evidence in favor of evolution, if indeed it actually exists. "Genes… should evolve at a slow but variable rate. However, the real picture is quite different. In most species, a large proportion of proteins are highly polymorphic, representing a wealth of variation that is difficult to explain. The level of polymorphism is so great that natural selection alone would have difficulty keeping it in line" (3).
Another problem for Evolutionary theory is mutations. Mutations are mistakes made in DNA when a cell divides. Evolution is built off the idea that over millions of years, benneficial mutations can turn a single cell "ferns, people, elephants, butterflies, and oak trees" (1).
"Darwin's original theory of evolution included the idea that environmental changes could cause structural changes to occur in plants and animals… and that these acquired characteristics could be transmitted to offspring" (Malone). For example, Darwin postulated that a short-necked giraffe, over many years of stretching to reach leaves, could actually form a longer neck, and pass this trait onto its offspring. This belief is called "Lamarckism," and has been "shown false and been replaced by the belief that genetic mutations are the major driving force behind evolution" (Malone).
However, this new theory is not standing the test of time, either. "One hundred years of intense experimentation has shown that mutations can not develop new organisms or even cause useful changes to existing organisms" (Malone). For instance, scientists have tested the effects of radiation-induced mutations in fruit flies. The mutation rate in these creatures was multiplied 15,000 times, plus the flies only have a 12-hour generation, making it very easy to "simulate millions of years of evolutionary progress." Yet the results of this experiment were "mainly dead or sterile fruit flies." None of the many resultant mutations gave the flies any new feature that was not already present in its genes. "No new organ or useful functioning feature has ever developed!" What's more, "even changes in the number of bristles on the irradiated fruit flies reverted back to the original number after several generations." This is not good for evolutionists, as this proved that "mutations never add new information and so cannot provide a source for new structures" (Malone). Therefore a basic fundamental evolutionary ideal does not even exist.
DNA actually points toward the God of the Bible, and the biblical account of creation. "Data from mitochondrial DNA suggest that the entire human population may be descended from a single female." "For many paleontologists, this strongly suggests that we all share a recent African past." The Bible describes all humans descending from one female, Eve, who lived in the Garden of Eden. This garden, as you may have guessed, was in northern Africa.
Evolution is not a scientific theory, it is a faith system. When one takes an overall look at Evolution and Creation, one sees that they are both faith systems: Eternal God verses Eternal Matter. This is the choice that every person, at one time or another, must make. "The essential element in the astronomical and Biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." (Robert Jastrow; agnostic astronomer) Believing in God is not unscientific, either. Many respectable scientists are Christians, and many other prominent scientists "choose to believe that which [they] know is impossible" merely to avoid believing in a Creator. (Stephan Hawking) As you continue through this website, I sincerely hope you will make an honest, unbiased decision on your origins and beyond.
