“Evolution is a fairy tale for adults,” says Professor Louis Bouroune, president of the Strasbourg Biological Society, director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum and director of the French National Center for Scientific Research. In other words, believing in evolution requires one to throw rationality out the window.
The “theory of evolution” formulated by Charles Darwin is based on faulty observations and data. In reality, there is a lot of evidence that contradicts this teaching. In fact, evolution is not really a theory, a law, or even a science. Theories can be tested. Scientific law is tried and tested by experimentation; not so with evolution. As we shall see, evolution is closer to blind wishful thinking than science.
Consider an illustration:
A man was having a conversation with his new neighbor in his garage. The man asks, “Have I told you about my watch?” The neighbor replies, “No. What’s the story?” “One day, I was here in the garage looking for a flashlight. My daughter left her skates and I slid into the tool box. Springs and screws flew everywhere! When I came to, I looked at the mess and all those things came together to make this watch.
In this scenario, a complicated machine (the clock) was assembled by accident at random. Evolution happens in the same way. According to Darwinians, all life on earth began with “primordial ooze” or slime glued together by lightning or some other energy source, causing the building blocks of life’s chemicals to be built. Over the course of billions of years, these components somehow became single-celled organisms, which eventually evolved into all living things on Earth through random mutations.
Unfortunately for evolutionists, scientific law cannot allow this to happen. The second law of thermodynamics states that natural processes progress in a direction that increases the total entropy (disorder) in the universe. In nature, nothing becomes more orderly or complex in structure than what it comes from. Nothing can create something more complex than itself.
Many people assume that the main evidence for evolution is in the fossil record. We often hear reports of new species discoveries. Dinosaur skeletons, “ape men” and other finds seem to prove that evolution occurs. Scientific explanations from experts make the arguments seem even stronger.
The fossil record also opposes evolution. There are no fossils of animals in transition phases. The “new” species have just appeared. For example, there are no fossils showing the development of wings to link reptiles and birds.
Man’s oldest ancestor is said to be a species identified by a skeleton known as “Lucy”. Not commonly known, but in most biological circles, Lucy is considered a chimpanzee (1). Neanderthals have been found to be “anatomically correct humans who were pathologically altered by iodine deficiency diseases” (2, 3). Articles published in the journal Science in 1996 admitted that Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon man, and modern man lived during the same time period (4, 5). Furthermore, not enough fossils exist to support the idea that the Earth was inhabited by various forms of life for hundreds of millions of years.
The effectiveness of carbon-14 dating has been questioned. For example, the blood of a seal that had just been euthanized in Antarctica was analysed. He indicated that the seal had been dead for 1,300 years (6).
There are many reasons to reject the claims of evolution beyond the ones we have briefly discussed in this essay. Seeing that there is no clear scientific or rational reason to accept Darwin’s theories as fact, those who deny the truth choose to “believe” in evolution. British physicist HS Lipton says: “Evolution has become, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘twist’ their observations to fit it.” Instead of believing in a Creator who made humans and the rest of the universe for a purpose, they make time and chance their creators. Believing in something that cannot be seen, proven, or even proven will be considered by many to be religious faith.
Sources:
1) Science News, col. 123 February 5, 1983, p. 89
2) John Noble Wilford, New York Times, December 1, 1999
3) Guy Gugliotta, Washington Post, May 24, 1999
4) Science, vol. 276, May 30: 1331 and 1392, and Science, vol. 274, Dec.
13, 1996: 1841 and 1870
5) Science, vol. 274, Dec 13, 1996: 1873-1873
6) W. Dort Jr., Ph.D., United States Antarctic Review,
September-October 1971, p. 211