Ten Major Flaws of Evolution
by Randy Alcorn
1. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics.
This law of physics states that the universe is in a process of deterioration. It is breaking down, giving out energy that leaves it “weaker” than before. (This implies that the condition of the universe was once perfect before entropy began–the exact teaching of Scripture!) Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced as time goes on. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy.
2. There is a total lack of fossilized or living examples of the countless billions of transitional forms (“missing links”) required for evolution to be true.
Evolution does not require one missing link, but many. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But this is not true–there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form.
3. Ape-to-human “missing links” are subjective reconstructions based on an evolutionist’s already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived.
The series of pictures or models showing progressive development from a little monkey to modern man is an insult to scientific research. These pictures and models are often based on tiny bits of old skeletons that can be “reconstructed” a hundred different ways. Another question surfaces concerning the hair, blank looks and stupid expressions on their faces. How much can be determined about the hair and the look in a creature’s eyes on the basis of a few old bones?
4. The dating methods used on rocks and fossils are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions.
Carbon-14, potassium-argon and many other kinds of dating methods are based on determining how much a certain element has deteriorated in a rock. If we know how much has deteriorated, and its rate of decay, then we can give it a date. But this assumes that once there was a “full” amount of the element in the rock and, furthermore, that the rate of decay has always remained constant. Yet, it has been shown that factors such as temperature, light, humidity and pressure affect decomposition rates. Since all these are variables, how can these dating methods still be considered reliable?
5. The complexity of the genetic code could never evolve by chance–it had to be designed.
When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to “happen” by chance. Yet the human genetic code is almost infinitely more complex than a watch. It simply had to be designed and created!
6. Evolution is said to have begun by pure spontaneous generation–a concept ridiculed by biology.
When I was a sophomore in high school, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that flies came from decaying meat. This now disproven concept was called “spontaneous generation.” Science has since proven that a living thing cannot come from a nonliving thing. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where the nonliving material came from we were not told). This is just another way of saying spontaneous generation–life comes from non-life. Evolution is therefore built on a basic fallacy long ago proven to be impossible.
7. Great periods of time make the possible likely, but never make the impossible possible.
Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, say millions and billions of years, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads and the same for tails. To get five “heads” in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row sometimes. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility in the first place. What are the chances of me flipping a coin and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given millions or billions of years, the chances would never increase. Spontaneous generation is not made any more likely just because of great periods of time!
8. Mutations are almost always harmful, usually lethal, and only modify previously existing designs–they do not create new ones.
Mutations are the genetic equivalent of mistakes. One scientist states, “The desperation of the evolutionists’ search for a means by which evolution could have come about is shown by the fact they have been forced to select mutations.” Mutations are the enemies of all life forms. A baby born with mutations is not heralded as a step forward in evolution, but a step back from the established perfection of creation. If a book typeset had random mutations, it would produce a worse copy every time it was printed, not a better one. Eventually the book would not even be readable. To hope that it would benefit from mutations/errors is to hope for the impossible. Time would prove an enemy, not an ally.
9. Evidence that is contrary to evolutionary theory is usually ignored or discarded, while evolutionists speak in confident and exact ways that imply absolute knowledge.
There are substantial discoveries that fly directly in the face of evolution. One among many is the Paluxy riverbed in Texas, where dinosaur and human footprints clearly exist on the same ground, formed at the same time. This completely destroys the entire evolutionary timetable. When pressed, some evolutionists have admitted this, but they continue to pass off the Paluxy discovery as a mystery! Meanwhile, they quote figures like “176,000 years ago...” Not 200,000, not 175,000, but 176,000, as if it were possible to ever begin to speak with such exactness!
10. The scientific method can only test existing data–it cannot draw conclusions about origins.
Science deals with observable phenomena. To prove the possibility of anything, it must be able to reproduce exact original conditions and even when it proves something is possible, it does not mean that it therefore happened. Origins are completely beyond the scope of science. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I used to believe in evolution, but no longer. I accept the Bible’s teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether it is faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God’s revealed Word.