Some Problems With Evolutionary Theory

The Theory of Evolution, in all it’s different permutations, assumes that a random collection of particles, whether quarks or electrons or whatever else, came together, and over time became increasingly organized. Eventually they formed the stars and planets through some mechanism. Over vast periods of time life evolved on earth by some similar mechanism, constantly becoming more refined until arriving at it’s present state.

The Theory of Evolution is based on Lyell’s Doctrine of Uniformity, that everything continues just as it always has, that things can only happen according to the Laws of nature. It is the belief described in II Peter 3:3-4. “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”

The idea of unorganized particles organizing into the modern world is in direct contradiction of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that everything tends to greater randomness or decreased organization, or in other words, everything deteriorates. That it is a law means that it has been proven to be true in every conceivable situation. The very basis of Evolution is thus in direct contradiction of science. Creation, on the other hand assumes God created everything perfect and it has deteriorated to the present state, which is exactly what science indicates.

One factor that caused the split between Einstein and the physicists of his day was the insistence that the so called Res shift or Doppler effect of light proved the universe to be expanding, thus supporting the Big Bang Theory of evolution. While I college, we went through the Einstein- Lorentz equations, proving that while there is a Doppler effect on true wave motion, special properties of light make it impossible for there to be a Doppler effect on light. The supposed Doppler effect results from the same phenomenon which causes the sun’s rays to appear to turn red just after sunrise and just before sunset, the filtering effect of our atmosphere on the light. Having proven that it could not be true, Einstein insisted that it could not be used to prove the universe was expanding. Ignoring Einstein’s proof or claiming it contains mistakes, the Red Shift is still cited as proof of the Big Bang Theory.

During the Dark Ages, alchemists tried to convert various materials into gold. The modern science of chemistry resulted, proving that any combination of materials always results in the same products each time. Even nuclear events produce predictable results. This is the very basis of modern Chemistry. Evolution insists that occasionally some new product occurs, contrary to that basic principle. The very experiment demonstrated on film of combining Nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen that purported to prove life could have evolved because the experiment produced organic compounds, in fact demonstrated that the evolution of life was impossible since only those compounds could result.

Evolution also assumes that Mendel’s Laws were in abeyance for a great deal of time in order for the evolution of new species. That they are considered Laws means that they also have been proven to always be true. If the doctrine of uniformity is true, these laws cannot be set aside.

Evolutionary proponents often point to differing population densities of a particular variety of insect or other life form to support their theories. Research has repeatedly demonstrated that both genetic traits were already present, but that natural selection resulted in a comparative numerical declines of one or the other as conditions changed and favored one more than the other. No new genetic material surfaced, and evolution would require formation of new genetic structures. Since such evolution is not seen today, it is theorized that the clock stopped, that the mechanism no longer functions. This is contradiction of Lyell’s Doctrine of Uniformity.

If as we are told, the inhabitants all came to the Americas over a land bridge near the north pole, the vast differences between different tribes of Indians is very hard to explain. There is as much difference between different Indian tribes as there is between Danes or Norwegians and Greeks. It seems unlikely that so many different groups would have traveled such vast differences. In addition, it seems improbable that people who built pyramids would have traveled through all northern Europe or Asia and then all the way back to Central America before setting up any civilizations. It is far more probable that they were simply isolated as the continents separated.

No matter how they try, evolution still had to start with some particles. Something still existed. No amount of time can overcome that fact. The particles had to come from somewhere. They have the same problem of original existence of matter we have with the existence of God. Something was already there. Since there has to b a cause for everything that happens, for evolution to be true, something had to cause the matter to evolve. The explanations they give are incapable of producing the results we see around us. Evolution has been described as being similar to taking a barrel of metal scraps to the top of a hill and rolling them down repeatedly with the expectation that one day they metal scraps will turn into a car if we do it often enough. Starting with neither the metal scraps or a hill to roll them down further decreases the likelihood of it occurring.

Human records and legends add further problems to the Evolutionary theories, reporting sightings of dinosaur like creatures(dragons) and mastodons in writings and pictures from around the world. Fossils do not explain the detailed accounts of such encounters. Legends of the flood, and written accounts dating back more than two thousand years BC indicate that it was widely believed.

Recent studies have indicated that the formation of coal and oil do not require millions of years. Neither does the formation of sedimentary rocks, and the formation of fossils is more indicative of rapid solidification than of prolonged periods. The geologic formations we see are more easily explained by erosion while the rocks were still soft than by millions of years of time. Hydrologists tell us a single world wide flood would cause the so called Glacial effects that would require seven Ice Ages. The fossil record itself conflicts with evolutionary theory by associating fossils in the same layer that should not coexist if evolution were true.

Of all the dating methods, the only tree ring dating has proven accurate. Every method of radioactive dating and dating by fossils is based on a series of assumptions. If the assumptions change, so do the results. Using radioactive measurements different labs produced dates ranging from about three thousand years to over thirty thousand years on the same piece of wood. Tree ring dating placed it about three thousand years before Christ. There is no way of knowing what assumptions are correct, and thus no way of being sure of the dates.

Fossil dating is based on the estimated time when the plant or animal lived. If the estimate is wrong, the date is equally wrong. Until the estimates can be verified, it is nothing more than a guess. The discovery of several living fossils, including coelacanths and trilobites makes dating using their fossils impossible.

The oldest wood only dates back about five thousand years, or about the time of the flood. Something must have destroyed all the wood before that, whether it was a flood or something else. If there was no flood, what was it?

One of my readers pointed out that continental drift is only about one half inch per year, and could never account for the separation of the continents in the biblical time frame. We know that there is a vast amount of resistance to the movements of the tectonic plates, which should eventually stop all movement. That it is moving despite such massive forces indicate that some force greater than the friction forces is pushing it. Since we have been unable to detect other forces of sufficient power, it would appear that the continental drift is a result of inertia, that a body in motion tends to stay in motion. That it is moving at all four thousand years later thus indicates that it moved far faster in the past. At a speed of eight inches per second, or roughly a half mile per hour, the present spacing of the continents would only require about six months, but considering the laws of inertia, it is probably the initial speed was far less. After all they have been in motion four thousand years, constantly slowing down. Unless some heretofore undetected force is driving the continental drift, it is the only possible explanation for the current rate of drift according to the laws of motion and inertia.

I believe creation is more in accord with the scientific evidence than evolution. That the theory of evolution in direct conflict with proven scientific principles of physics, chemistry, and biology proves it is unscientific. I have only mentioned a few of t conflicts, there are hundreds more. Many different versions of evolutionary theory have been developed in attempts to explain certain conflicts, but none address all, or even most of the problems.