Rebuttal of Evolutionary Theory
In this section, we will put forth the principal arguments, criticisms and questions lodged against evolution. Many creationists put as much time and effort into the repudiation of evolution as they do into argument of creationism. This is because creationists only need one compelling refutation of any of the major claims of evolution to prove their side. In reality, there are only two options about the world’s beginnings: evolution or creationism. So, if creationists could just punch one good hole in evolution, then they automatically win the battle.
However, on the flip side, evolutionists di not enjoy such a luxury: even if an evolutionist would punch a forceful hole in a pivotal point for the creationist, still, the creationist can and will remain steadfast in his/her beliefs. While creationism sometimes fronts as a scientific theory – such as in its “Independent Design” form – at its very core, creationism is really a theological assertion. Consequently, no matter how many holes one punches in creationism, it will stand strong and proud amongst its believers. Proponents of evolution lack the luxury – or the intellectual right – of believing in evolution once an element of its scientific argument has been shown to be faulty. As science, it must uphold to science’s laws, and so, when facts are found that belie the validity of the theory, one’s own intellect honesty compels that person to reject said theory.
A scientific theory, or a scientific paradigm, remains useful only as long as it shows itself to be the best possible explanation of the given facts. This does not mean that there are no other possible ways to explain the facts or that two competing theories cannot co-exist side by side; so in the case of evolution, it just means that given the present knowledge of the facts and sciences, evolution is the best explanation that accounts for all the information. So over the last one hundred years, while the theory of evolution has been updated, changed, reorganized and recalculated, the scientific community has persistently claimed that evolution, even with its faults, holes and biases, still best explains the facts.
Accordingly, we will not evaluate here the truth content or scientific legitimacy of the following creationist claims. In the author’s opinion, as well as in the eyes of many prestigious scientists, many of the following claims are false. Nonetheless, here is not the proper place to evaluate each and every one of the points; rather, they all will be succinctly given for the purpose of making the reader aware of the issues.
- 1. Evolution cannot be observed today
- Evolutionary does not identify any observable biological process that impels simple organisms to mutate to complex ones; why does evolution always favor more complex organisms?
- Natural selection is tautological; it only ensured that the fittest survive, but the only way to define the fittest is by those who survive.
- Mutations are exceedingly rare and yet they are the source for all genetic variation. In truth, mutation usually results in the animal’s death or disfigurement. There have been no beneficial mutations recorded since the theory of evolution was first put forth.
- No one has even produced an observable species through evolution.
- 2. Lack of Evidence
- The fossil record never shows that one species evolved into another.
- The Cambrian explosion (the sudden appearance of virtually all major groups of animals in the fossil record in a small amount of time) fails to produce a plausible ancestor for all life as we know it today.
- There is a regular absence of transitional forms across the board; we cannot accurately trace the ancestry of even one species. Many of the classical examples of evolution today are accepted as non-conclusive.
- No new phylum ever evolved after the Cambrian era even though there has been plenty of time.
- The fossil record shows that evolution happens in spurts Animals remain unchanged for millions of years and then go through epochs of drastic change. This fact is called ‘punctuated equilibrium.’ It is highly unlikely that the main characteristic of a philosophy of change is changelessness.
- Some bones have been mistakenly identified as transitional animals.
- 3. Evolution Never Happens at All, Nor Is It Possible
- Evolutionists still have not presented any model that allows for a living being to mutate from in inanimate object through natural processes. And even if there were a model, the probability that is could occur is virtually zero.
- Given the two possibilities, evolution and creationism, the more rational option is creationism through God; it assumes less chance work.
- There is no evidence that the stars or the universe evolve. Scientists and mathematicians assume that all their work is true even though it is unverifiable, and does not hold up to the standard that they themselves have set.
- 4. Circumstantial evidence says no to evolution
- Just because scientists cannot find the function of various organs (vestigial organs, tailbone, appendix, pseudogenes) does not mean that they do not have a purpose. Though, scientists have found that most organs fill some need.
- There are many animal organs that defy evolutionary development, including mammal hair, teeth, eyes, the poison mechanism of snakes, etc.
- Never has an animal in a transitional state been found.
- Some assume that the development of an embryo in the womb parallels evolution; even evolutionists do not believe this anymore.
- 5. The Fossil Records is Best Explained Through a Sudden Death
- Under normal circumstances, dead animals do not fossilize: they decompose.
- There are no real breaks in geological epochs that allow them to be differentiated scientifically; rather, the start and close of all epochs are randomly asserted based on personal biases of the theorist. If all the animals died in one mass event, then all differentiation of epochs would be a farce.
- One could easily argue that the fossil records depict the mass death of all animals during the flood.
- 6. Earth’s Age
- Science claims the earth is roughly 4.6 billion years old, yet by adding up all the years in the bible, one arrives at an age fewer than six thousand. By proving that the earth is much younger, evolution is ruled out for lack of time to be carried out.
- Most sciences rely on each other and reinforce each other’s biases. Geological epochs are generally defined by the different strata of fossils found, but this argument is tautological. Once one assumes that fossils are appropriate markers for geological epochs, then one is simply assuming evolution as a given. Furthermore, many rocks, allegedly from different strata, exist side by side in the same rocks, but the theorists slice them apart in order to give the appearance that they are from the same strata.
- Whenever the rock stratum is in discordance with the chronology of the evolutionist, he simply claims that the discordance is proof that the strata has been displaced, even it is hundreds of thousands of square miles.
- God created a world that appears old; therefore, all empirical estimates are inherently worthless.
- Radiocarbon dating could lead one to the conclusion that the earth is less than 50,000 years old.
- Measurement of decay of the earth’s magnetic field shows the earth to be even younger than this.
- The days mentioned in the story of creation is not meant to be taken literally. Really, they refer to much longer epochs of time.
- 7. The Design Argument
- The immense complexity found in every facet of the world cannot have been produced by sheer chance.
- It is more likely that God created the world with all its many facets as we find today.
- Given the choice of nothingness or design, it seems more likely that nothing would exist. Given that, not only something – the universe – exists, but that it is remarkably well ordered, it must have an intelligent cause.
By definition, evolutionists will have an answer to everyone of these questions, otherwise than cannot honestly still hold on to their theory. Without a doubt, some answers will better than others, but to uphold its status of a scientific true theory, the evolutionist is obliged to supply at least some answer.