Evolution

Yes, this is the big one: Evolution. Perhaps the only reason people can remain completely skeptical of a God is the theory of evolution. I'm not going to claim that I can disprove evolution entirely; obviously if I could disprove evolution, no one would still believe in it. However, I will go through the theory of evolution point by point and highlight the many, many flaws present in this theory. In fact, after studying evolution, I have realized that even if I weren't a Christian, I would have a hard time believing in evolution. The most important thing to keep in mind with evolution, as with all scientific theories that go against the Bible, is that it is just a theory. It is accepted by scientists, who for the most part are atheists, who must deivse some explanation for the existence of life without the intervention. Therefore, since scientists are the only source of scientific information that we have, and since most scientists believe in evolution, it is logical that evolution is the only accepted theory on the origin of life. I will go ahead and admit now that some Christian scientists do believe in evolution; however, after reading this page I hope you will see that as a Christian you don't have to sacrifice any beliefs because of what Scientists believe.
  • The Two Faces of Evolution
    The first piece of evolution I would like to cover is the source of a common misconception about the theory. There are in fact two types of evolution: micro-evolution and macro-evolution, which are entirely different concepts. Macro-evolution is the concept of evolution that most people are familiar with. Macro states that over time, species will adapt to different environments and eventually cross the barriers of species to become new animals altogether. However, micro-evolution states that a certain species adapts to its environment over time to aid its survival, but stays within the boundaries of the species. Micro-evolution has in fact been observed in our environment. An example of micro is as follows: Trees living near a chemical plant that releases tons of black smoke will gain an accumulation of soot on their trunks. Therefore, bats in that area with darker coats will blend in to the trunks more easily and will thus e more likely to survive. Eventually, the bat population will adapt a darker coat altogether. This is an observable scientific phenomenon that can not be debated. Does this prove that evolution occured? No. In fact when looked into in greater detail, it almost hurts the theory more than it helps it. Note that though the bats eventually changed the color of their coat, they remained bats. In micro-evolution, species are always neatly contained in the boundaries of their species. Macro-evolution on the other hand states that eventually these bats would turn into different creatures, but we have never observed that happening. For example, we have never observed bats turn into cats. Actually, support for micro-evolution can even be found in the Bible. In Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, and 25 alone, the Bible states 10 times that plants and animals will produce after their own kind, never crossing their species' boundaries. This is exactly what micro-evolution declares, that animals will reproduce, but will stay in the same species.

  • Some Problems with Evolution
    I'm sure most of you have heard the basic premise of evolution. If not, I'll go over it for a second. Basically, the theory is as follows: On early earth, many in inorganic (lifeless) molecules existed. Scientists theorize that the atmostphere was completely oxygen deficient at this time; however, their only reason for believing this is that oxygen would immediately kill any amino acids, which are essential for life. Storms occured then like they do now, and lightning would strike the inorganic particles, causing an influx of energy and thus a change in the structure of the molecule. Over the millions of years that earth existed in this state, the lightning cause some molecules to arrange themselves in a way that would lead to life. Eventually over many, many years, this molecule would adapt to its environment, and after a few billion years, would turn into the animals we know today. So that's evolution in a nutshell. However, with this extremely simplified version of the theory, many problems immediately emerge. First of all, the assumption that early earth was oxygen deficient is completely unfounded, and in fact contradicted by geological evidence. According to rocks found all over the earth, it is evident that oxygen has always been present on earth [1]. Further, even if we denied geological records, and assumed that the atmosphere was oxygen deficient, more problems exist. With no oxygen, there would be no ozone, and with no ozone, nothing can exist; any life would immediately be stamped out by cosmic rays [1]. Also, another huge problem with evolution is the probability that it would occur by chance. The simplest cell is as complex as a metropolis such as Atlanta or New York. It consists of millions of tiny particles all working together to Given the amazing number of combinations that could result. To declare that a cell could form completely by itself would be analogous to saying that all the pieces of brick, concrete, metal, etc. that are used to build a city suddenly came together and built an entire city by itself. The probability of a organic molecule forming from an inorganic molecule has been calculated, and is ridiculously miniscule. Assuming that lightning strikes the earth somewhere 100 trillion times per second (which is completely ridiculous), it would take the earth 31,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years to even form the enzymes necessary for life. This is 60 trillion, trillion times the scientifically accepted age for the earth. However, this figure does not even include the probaility that the many kinds of proteins would form properly for life, and that probability has been estimated as small as 1/10^40,000. To put this in perspective, in the scientific community, a probability of 1/10^80 is considered impossible. The irony of this situation is that the scientists who believe in evolution contradict their own beliefs about what is scientifically possible with evolution. In order to trust a probability that small, you would have to trust that someone could pick a specific atom out of every atom in the universe 5 times in a row. But even that probability is not completely sufficient. Most scientists even believe that when all things are considered, the exponent in the probability for evolution would have to be expressed in exponents to be understandable [2]. However, the self-proclaimed intelligent and rational-minded atheist scientists still continue to accept this ridiculously irrational and unintelligent probability. But we have yet to even scrape the surface of the problems of evolution.
  • References

    [1]: Creation Science Evangelism. [2]: Creation Science Evangelism (2). http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
    http://www.human--evolution.com/
    http://www.evidence-for-evolution.com/
    http://www.creation-vs-evolution.net/
    http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
    http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolprob.html#stick
    http://www.youthontherock.com/viewtopic.php?t=213&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
    http://www.youthontherock.com/viewtopic.php?t=213&highlight=comic
    http://www.amazingfacts.org/items/Read_Media.asp?ID=637
    http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
    http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles
    add to old young earth debate:
    http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=2