Eight Impediments of Evolution

How did we get here? There are really only two possibilities. Either we were created, or we evolved. That's it. There is no third possibility (at least none with any credibility). So, let's focus on a few of the problems of evolution. This is far from an exhaustive list; it is merely eight major reasons why I don't believe it is a viable option.

1. Evolution is a theory that can't be proven using the scientific method. In the scientific method, you form your hypothesis and then test it with experiments to determine if it's true or not. But with evolution, there's nothing to test. It can't be duplicated in the lab; therefore, it can't be proven. That also highlights a big problem for evolution. If life was so simple to start by happenstance, we should be able to add a few crucial ingredients and create new life in the lab, but that hasn't been the case.

Some people will point to evidence of a moth changing colors or insects becoming immune to pesticides as evidence of evolution. This is something called microevolution, which is really just the full genetic expression and variation of a species. However, macroevolution has its limits. A moth may be able to change color, for instance, but it's still a moth. It will never become something else. Macroevolution, which is what Darwin espoused, is the changing of one kind into another kind. That is something that has never been observed in nature. Thus, it will forever remain a theory.

2. Evolution doesn't explain how life began and how it came from non-life. In the beginning, there was only matter. For evolution to be true, organic matter would have to arise from inorganic matter. How does that happen? Evolution is based upon mutations, but for mutations to occur, organic material has to already exist. Do you see the problem? It's like the joke: which came first, the chicken or the egg? We live in a cause-and-effect universe. There has to be causation to start the process to begin with.

3. If everything evolved from simple cell organisms, there would have to be thousands, if not millions, of transitional changes from one kind to the next kind. There should be evidence of this in the form of skeletal remains. However, the fossil record just does not show it. Charles Darwin admitted this was a problem for his theory.

4. Evolution runs contrary to the law of thermodynamics. In the theory of evolution, all living creatures are getting better with time. However, thermodynamics states that entropy always increases. In essence, entropy means everything moves from order to disorder, never the reverse. This is why inorganic objects will wear out and need to be replaced, and organic beings get old and die. Things don't get better with time; they get worse.

This is also true for the human genome. Geneticist Dr. John Sanford, in his book Genetic Entropy, says the human race is currently degenerating at 1-2% per generation due to the accumulation of mutations, and "the extinction of the human genome appears to be just as certain and deterministic as the extinction of stars, the death of organisms, and the heat death of the universe. " Evolution is built upon mutations, but mutations don't generally make things better; they result in handicaps.

5. Evolution does not account for the high degree of uniformity we see in nature. Let's take humans for example. Humans are all anatomically the same. We may have superficial differences—different hair, skin, and eye color, for example—but we all have one head, two arms, two legs, the same organs and appendages, and so on. You may see birth defects, as with conjoined twins, but this is an abnormality. The point is, humans and animals would not evolve the exact same way. We should see many different variations in structure and anatomy, but we don't.

6. Evolution requires many changes over millions of years to organize into complex organisms. But such a long protracted timeframe would actually work against evolution. You see, things like the immune system and blood coagulation would have had to be there from the beginning; otherwise, the organism would die before it had a chance to evolve. Moreover, complex individual systems such as the eyes and ears are interdependent on each other to function. These systems must be complete and functioning as a whole from the beginning; otherwise, they serve no purpose.

7. DNA is analogous to a binary computer code. It contains information that is arranged in different sequences. It is then read by the cells like an instruction manual to build proteins. The question is, where did all that information come from? A computer program requires a programmer, someone outside the system to provide the information. It stands to reason that if DNA is code, then it also requires a programmer, or in this case, a creator.

8. This final point ties in with the previous point. For evolution to be true, it would, in essence, have to be driven by a non-sentient intelligence. Something as complex as humans and animals can't just come about by happenstance. Our bodies are symmetrical; each organ performs specific tasks. All the systems of the body are individual parts but also interdependent, all working together in a synergetic way. The point is, no matter how you slice it, there has to be some sort of intelligence behind it. So, what's more logical, that we are here because of a non-sentient intelligence or that we got here by a sentient intelligence? It makes much more sense to me that the latter is more plausible.