The Limits of Evolution

The triumph of evolution has been trumpeted in almost every arena of our lives:  our schools, museums, television programming and more.  The idea has been spread that to question evolution is to be ignorant and uneducated (a rhetorical technique called “poisoning the well”)  Who wants to be “ignorant or uneducated”.  The public has been assured that there is no doubt or dissent on the matter of evolution creating all species.  Do you believe it?

Evolution has allowed many to rest assured that God doesn’t exist.  It has caused others to abandon their faith.  It has even been incorporated into the doctrine of some Christian denominations!  The only problem is there is no proof that it happened.  In fact there is proof that it can’t happen beyond a certain limited point.  The theory of evolution has been advanced largely by misinformation to the public and intimidation in academic circles.  If the theory of evolution plays any role in your worldview, it is time for you to look critically at it with an independent mind.

Evolution could never get life started.  A hundred years ago living things were thought to be simple.  The ability that now exists to look inside the cell has proven that even a single cell organism is mind bogglingly complex.  You need a lot more than water or amino acids to create life.  There is nothing inevitable about it.  An acquaintance of mine, who once took me to lunch to prove evolution to me, gave me a chance to ask a question before we ever got into the restaurant.  My question, “How did the first living thing come into being?  It would seem that the odds of the unguided assembly of a living things are unthinkably against it happening?”   His scientifically informed answer, “I guess we got lucky.”

Lucky is winning the lottery when playing one ticket.  Imaginably lucky would be doing it twice.  But we are talking beating those odds thousands of times over.  It is so ridiculous, that it is only reasonable to conclude it didn’t happen that way.  Evolution has no way to start.

How about creating one creature from another.  Perhaps an isolated population of some species could naturally select positive, chance mutations over a long enough period of time to arrive at a whole new creature.  After all, look at all the shared features we have.  Why would they be the same if not inherited?  The obvious answer is they were created by the being.  Nobody said God started from scratch for each creature.  I wouldn’t.  Can chance and natural selection do the same thing?

The problem for evolution creating a new creature from an existing one is two-fold.  First when DNA mutates most mutations are fatal.  The next largest possibility is that the mutation is neutral in effect.  So why would natural selection select it?  The third most common, and very rare, is a detrimental breaking of the gene that actually confers a short-term benefit.  Anti-biotic resistance is an example of this.  The bacteria is still a bacteria.  It has lost capability to move certain compounds through its cell wall because of mutation, but luckily it can’t move the antibiotic either.  It is devolving but is still alive.  Sickle cell anemia is an example of this in people.  Terrible disease.  People with sickle cell have damaged red blood cells, but they can’t be invaded by the malaria parasite.  A niche, short-term win.

Sometimes genes break and become non-functional.  This is not evolving, but it makes changes that are not fatal and can provide variety in the lowest levels of classification: species and genus.  So natural selection can and does happen, but it can’t truly make new creatures or produce the wide variety of life.

My acquaintance that I mentioned before told me about a common broken gene among apes and humans.  The gene looks like it used to produce vitamin C in a similar way to how our bodies produce vitamin D.  How could both apes and humans have the same defect if it was not inherited?  I didn’t have an answer at the time.  Now I do.  It makes sense that this gene was prone to break for some reason.  The loss of the ability to make vitamin C was not a big problem because the vitamin is readily available in our diets.  I bet the defective gene also produces some beneficial affect.

Strictly positive mutations are extraordinarily rare, if they happen at all. Evolution can do modest changes, which we see in living things.  Other than that, mutation just brings extinction.

Mainline biology doesn’t want to accept that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection can’t produce the wide diversity of life.  They have no other explanation except that God was involved.  This is unacceptable to minds that are hardened against God.  Such an admission would undermine the standing of biology as a true science by the definition of many in the scientific community.

Living things and their complexity are the most powerful, observable proof that God exists.  Things like astronomy and geology proclaim the same thing, but they are easier to explain away.   Knowing this, the biological science community has largely closed ranks and forces acceptance of the Darwinian model within their ranks.  Evolutionary biology isn’t a true science, not because it accepts God, but because it doesn’t allow Darwin to be falsifiable by evidence.  It is an ideology instead.

Ideologies make intelligent people blind.  Don’t be one of them.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s