Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

The Theory of Evolution has been very crucial in shaping the dominant world-view in the developed nations today. After it became popular, it spawned a progeny of other atheistic/agnostic theories like relativism, humanism, materialism, and atheism. These faiths, which practically banished God out of people's lives, have made a tremendous contribution towards the terrible ethical-moral state of society, especially in Western countries.

The Theory of Evolution is taught as a scientific, proven fact in our schools, but is nothing more than an unproven theory. Worse, it does not stand up to material evidence, contradicts proven scientific laws like the laws of Thermodynamics, and is not even in accordance with commonplace observations of day-to-day life! All material evidence found (e.g. fossil records) goes against this theory.

This is a theory that shapes the thinking of most educated people today. At the age, which they are taught this theory as proven fact, children do not have the ability or the resources to question and crosscheck its validity. They blindly accept it as proven fact (when today even many scientists question it and do not believe in it). Their world-view, outlook in life, and responses to moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia etc., are shaped by it.

With such wide ramifications, the foundations of the theory have to be critically examined before it can be accepted. Fortunately, there is a wealth of material available for anyone who cares to research, and the findings of unbiased research show that all the foundations on which the Theory is based on, are hollow and do not stand up to critical examination. These foundations are the estimated age of the earth, fossil records and the carbon-dating process, and the phenomenon of mutations. Let's take them up, one by one.

The basis of all radiometric-dating methods is that some elements are radioactive and with time they decay into other elements: uranium decays into thorium and thorium into lead. So taking a sample of a certain rock, scientists measure how much lead it contains and, knowing the rate of decay of uranium, the age of the rock is calculated. There are several assumptions involved in the process:

First, it is assumed that the rate of decay has always been constant but modern research shows that it is not. In most cases decay occurs rapidly at first and slows down later. This would tremendously affect the age of the rock. Second, it is assumed that the initial quantity of the parent element (the first element in the chain) is known, but it is not; this is mainly guesswork. We do not know how much of the original rock was uranium for example, and how much lead was already present initially. Third, it is assumed that the system under study is an isolated system. This means that the lead in our example came only from the uranium and this gives the very big age. When Dr. Melvin Cook, a Nobel award winner for his research in this field, applied a neutron reaction correction to the dating methods, a Cambrian rock dated at 600 million years gave a figure of only a few thousand years!

The famous carbon-14 dating method has one further assumption - that carbon-14 has already reached a state of equilibrium (i.e. the rate of production of C14 is equal to its rate of decay). For such a state to be achieved, it requires 30000 years from the start of the atmosphere, and since evolutionists talk about billions of years, they assume that the equilibrium state has already been achieved. Modern studies show that it is not so and that the formation is still atleast 24% more than decay. So all dates arrived at by this method now require adjustment, and such adjustments have reduced them dramatically. Coal from Russia, supposedly 300 million years old, was dated again at 1680 years! A group of scientists in the U.S. dated the shell of a living snail using the carbon-14 dating method as 27,000 years old! The potassium-argon method is so inconsistent that when this method was applied to volcanic rocks known to be 200 years old from the historical record, it gave a range of values from 22 million years to 200 million years! The millions that evolutionists speak about so casually, and want people to take for granted, are most probably not true. The earth may be only a few thousand years old! And it most probably is so, on consideration of the following:

Firstly, all recorded history and civilizations of the world date back to a maximum of about 6000 years. Isn't this strange if man, according to evolution, has been around for more than a million years? Secondly, the oldest living trees in the world dated accurately by annual growth rings are about 4000-5000 years old. Thirdly, the present world population (about 4 billion people) is also in harmony with these figures. If we start with 8 people and apply a growth factor of 2.5 children per family (less than the present rate), we will end up with the present population in about 4300 years. But if we take the same rate and apply it to only half a million years of evolution of man, there would not be enough surface area on our planet to contain the number of people. A fourth fact: Dr. Barnes of Texas University studied the rate to decay of the magnetic field of the earth, using recorded data over the past 300 years. He found out that if we go back beyond 20,000 years, the heat from the currents causing the magnetic field would have been so strong as to separate the core from the mantle of the earth. Fifth: when space ships landed on the moon, evolutionists expected the ships to sink in the layer of meteoritic dust that would have accumulated over its assumed age of billions of years. They estimated this layer to be atleast 16.5 meters deep. But to their disappointment, when Luna landed on the moon, the greatest reading it gave was 0.5m, showing that the moon is also young. Sixth: from the Carbon-14 equilibrium state measurements mentioned above, scientists were able to calculate an approximate upper limit to the age of the atmosphere to be a maximum of 10000 years.

Now if the earth is that young, then the Theory of Evolution, by the admission of its own proponents, falls flat on its face because there is no way evolution could have taken place in so short a time. It requires millions of years for evolution to be possible. The foundations of the first pillar are hollow.

Next, the fossil records, the only so-called material evidence for evolution. These too disprove the Theory of Evolution and point towards Creation. What are fossils? When an organism is trapped and swept away by running water, it is buried at some point by sediment. The sediment becomes compacted into rock and the organisms or their imprints become part of the rock. Fossils are evidence of sudden death and quick burial, and not slow gradual death and decay. If the fossil record favors evolution, we would expect, first of all, to find the oldest layers of rock having the most primitive forms of life, and gradually as we go up the different strata we expect to find more and more complex forms of life.

Do we find this? Not at all! There are no indisputable fossils below the Cambrian strata. Then, all of a sudden, fossils of billions of animals that are complex, like trilobites, jellyfish and worms, appear in the Cambrian strata. Even if we accept microfossils of single cells, there is a huge gap with no fossils at all which, according to Evolution, took 1.5 billion years. According to Creation, all living things were created together. The record shows that the fossils appear together. That's the first reason why fossils favor Creation.

The second reason is that if the fossil records were to favor evolution, then we would also expect new basic types not to appear suddenly, but to possess some characteristics of their ancestral groups. So if fish gave rise to amphibians over 50 million years according to evolution, there must be millions of fossils showing transitional forms, that is fossils with part fins and part legs, or half fish and half amphibian. If reptiles gave rise to birds over millions of years, then we must find fossils with part forelimbs and part wings, or half reptile and half bird. But in all the fossil record comprising of millions of fossils, not a single transitional form is to be found! The size of the record cannot be blamed - it is more than enough to draw sensible conclusions.

Evolutionists cite a now-extinct animal called Archaeopteryx as an example of a transitional form between reptiles and birds. In fact, Archaeopteryx was a bird: it had perching feet, the wings of a bird, feathers identical to modern bird feathers, a bird-like skull and a 'wishbone'. And it flew! The fact that it had claws on its wings does not make it a transitional form. There are atleast three birds living today that have claws on their wings: the Hoatzin in South America, the Touraco in Africa, and the Ostrich - and none of these are intermediates! The fact that Archaeopteryx had teeth also does not make it an intermediate. Some ancient birds had teeth and some did not. Some fish have teeth and some amphibians and reptiles have teeth, but there are fish and amphibians and reptiles with no teeth. And interestingly, fossils of a bird found in Texas were dated by evolutionists as 75 million years before the Archaeopteryx!

Absence of transitional forms has been accepted even by scientists as the biggest gap in the Theory of Evolution. For the Theory of Evolution to be accepted, there must be billions of fossils of transitional forms. Yet not a single transitional form has been found. This is also the case in the supposed evolution of man from ape. Inspite of many claims, 'the missing link' still remains missing! Many of the claims in fact, have proven to be hoaxes!

Consider Java Man for example, built by Dubois on the evidence of a leg bone, skullcap and three teeth. He concealed for 30 years the fact that he had found "modern" human skulls near it and at the same level. Before his death and after having convinced most of the early skeptics, Dubois confessed that the skull was that of an ape.

Nebraska Man was built on the evidence of a tooth - a single tooth! Using this tooth, evolutionists developed an idea about Nebraska Man, his wife and the tools they used - all on the basis of one tooth! Years later it was discovered that the tooth belonged to a pig! Yet Nebraska Man is still taught in many textbooks today as the missing link.

Piltdown Man, discovered in England by Charles Dawson in 1912, was based on a piece of jaw, two molar teeth and a piece of skull. In 1953 the hoax was exposed - the jaw belonged to a modern day ape, the teeth had been filed down and the bones artificially colored to deceive the public. The ease with which the fraud, placed in the British Museum for 40 years, fooled the world's greatest authorities illustrates the powerful influence of preconceived ideas.

Peking Man of China, claimed to be ape-man, was built up on evidence of fragments of skull, jaws and teeth. The evidence has since been unaccountably lost! Yet Peking Man is still claimed today as the missing link!

The discoveries of Louis Leaky and Dart of the Australopithecus and Zinjanthropus were later proved by Richard Leaky and others to be male and female of one type of well-known African ape and not ape-man. Neanderthal Man and Cro-Magnon Man have cranial capacities even bigger than modern man does. Scientists today agree that both specimens are true Homo Sapiens (man). They have to; otherwise they will have to reverse the Theory of Evolution! Many human skulls have been discovered at levels below the uppermost. That would make modern man contemporary with his alleged ancestors and in some cases even older!

There are also many other aspects of the fossil record that cannot be explained by evolution. Some of these very briefly are:

The foundations of the second pillar too, are hollow.

The third pillar of the Theory of Evolution is the phenomena of mutations. Mutations are sudden changes in genetic structure brought about by external factors, like radiation, penetrating the germ cell. According to the theory, when these mutations are beneficial or helpful, they are supposedly preserved and passed on to the following generations and these are then responsible for developing a new superior kind.

Mutations should be distinguished from 'natural selection' which is a reasonable and valid concept. Used interchangeably, these expressions can mislead us. The famous peppered moth example is often cited as evidence for evolution, when in fact it is only evidence for natural selection! In the 1850s the light form of the peppered moth made up 98% of the moth population in England. They were well camouflaged on the light tree background, whereas the dark ones stood out and were spotted by birds that ate them. Then pollution due to the industrial revolution killed the lichen on the trees, revealing the dark color of the bark. As a result, the dark moths were more camouflaged than the light ones. Thus the dark ones now had a better chance of survival resulting in 98% being dark moths in the 1950s. The moths themselves never changed. There were always dark and light moths. Although textbooks cite this as an example of 'evolution going on today', it definitely is not!

Several examples can be cited about the amazing fit of organisms to their environment. When an adaptation involves a whole group of traits working together, with none of the individual pieces having any survival value until the whole set is functioning together, then evolutionists have a big problem. Good examples are the Flicker woodpecker and the Bombardier beetle.

The woodpecker is continually banging its beak into trees. To do this and survive it must have a thick skull, with shock-absorbing tissues, muscles and other parts. It also requires a very long tongue to reach under the tree bark. All these traits must be fully developed together for the woodpecker to survive.

The Bombardier beetle has an igneous chemical defense mechanism. When an attacker comes to eat the beetle, the beetle turns around and blasts the attacker in the face with hot noxious gases at 100 degrees Centigrade, which allows the beetle to escape. To achieve the firing with success, the beetle has to mix the right amount of two chemicals - hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones, making use of two enzymes and enzyme blockers, pressure tanks, and a whole series on nerve and muscle attachments for aim and control.

Imagine for a moment that evolution is true. The attacker comes and the beetle mixes the wrong amounts and boom! it blows itself up! Wait several million years for the next beetle to evolve... and so on! When it comes to adaptations that requires several traits all depending on one another, time and chance, evolution has no hope. The only logical and sensible explanation is design and Creation.

Darwin analyzed many features of animals and attributed them to survival of the fittest. He assumed that new traits, for example the long neck of the giraffe, were acquired characteristics due to the environment, and believed that these could be inherited. Giraffes supposedly got long necks because their ancestors stretched them to reach leaves high in the trees, then passed on more neck 'pangenes' to their offspring. This idea of progress through effort, which contributed to the early popularity of evolution, has since been proved wrong and discarded! Scientists know today what Darwin didn't know about heredity - that traits which are acquired through 'effort' cannot be passed on to offspring.

As scientists discovered the errors in Darwin's assumptions they tried to develop Darwinism into a new form, Neo-Darwinism. They replaced this concept of use and disuse by the random changes in genes called mutations.

What does science have to say about mutations? All observed natural mutations are ultimately either harmful or deadly, with no exception. Yet evolutionists claim (with no basis) that one in 10,000 mutations might not be harmful and they base the theory on this assumption.

Thousands of mutations were carried out on the fruit fly. The results? Some blind, some without legs, some with short wings, but always inferior in the long run and less fit to survive. They also remained fruit flies.

Once again, mathematical probability quantifies the problem evolutionists have in assuming mutations are the mechanism of evolution. Mutations are rare, they occur on average perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule (1 in 10⁷). The problem comes when one needs a series of related mutations; the odds of getting only two related mutations is 10⁷ x 10⁷ = 10¹⁴, or one in one hundred trillion. Only four related mutations have a chance of one in 10²⁸, and the earth is not big enough to hold enough organisms to make this likely! Huxley, the famous evolutionist worked out the probability of the evolution of the horse as 1 in 10^3,000,000.

Another major problem with mutations is that they are going the wrong way for evolution. They can never be used to explain build-up of genetic order as evolutionists claim. Mutations are errors in information and they will never result in an overall improvement to the original situation.

The only example of a beneficial mutation cited by evolutionists is sickle-cell anemia, a disease of red blood cells. However, it is classified as beneficial only because the carrier of this cell becomes immune to malaria. This is because the life span of the defective blood cell is shorter than the incubation period of the malaria. It is not due to any improvement in the blood cell. So only in regions of the world where malaria is a common cause of death, carriers of sickle-cell anemia are at an advantage. However, where the defective gene is inherited from both parents, the person usually dies before reaching adulthood. Hence sickle-cell anemia is a harmful mutation after all!

All evidence points to the fact that mutations cannot be justified as the means of evolution. Mutations point to Creation. They are changes occurring in already existing genes and all you get as a result of a mutation is a varied form of an already existing gene; not a different, beneficial gene!

The foundations of the third pillar of the Theory of Evolution are also hollow!

The Big Bang Theory goes hand in hand with the Theory of Evolution, supporting it by figures of thousands of millions of years it says it took the universe to come to the place where it is in now. These huge figures are necessary for evolution to have any chance. This theory too, needs critical examination before being accepted.

The Big Bang Theory goes something like this: In the beginning there was a 'cosmic egg' which was the size of a speck of dust on a table. This particle accommodated the condensed mass of the entire universe! Then a Big Bang occurred (about Ten thousand million years ago). Then an early generation of stars first had to form. These stars converted some of the original hydrogen and helium into elements like carbon and oxygen, out of which we are made, and so on.

The primary reason for the postulate that there was such a 'cosmic egg' and a big bang is that the universe is expanding (which is an observed fact). If Newton's law of motion, that a moving particle will continue in its motion unless an external force is applied to the observation that the universe is continually expanding, then going back in time, there will be a moment when all the mass will be at one point. Something has to happen to blow off this mass in all directions, and that something was the 'Big Bang'.

Needless to say, there is a massive assumption behind this which does not take into account the 'unless' of Newton's law of motion. Why should it be assumed that the universe was not created in an intermediate state, and an external force was applied by the Creator to send all the bodies in the universe in motion away from the center of the universe. To get the concept clear, imagine this situation - you are standing on a road and observe a car going past you at 30 kmph. You are given the further information that the car has been moving steadily at this speed. You are then asked the question '2 hours back, how far was it?' and your simplistic answer is '60 kms. away' (like the simplistic answer of the Big Bang Theory). Are you right? Not necessarily! You have made the major assumption that it has traveled at this rate for all of the two hours! What if the car had all the time been stationary all the time just 5 kms away, and started moving only 10 minutes back?

But there is something even more miserable about the Big Bang Theory - it contradicts the well-proven Laws of Thermodynamics! There are no exceptions to these laws. From the simplest experiment to the most complex, all processes in the universe obey the Laws of Thermodynamics.

The First Law is known as the 'Law of Conservation of Energy' and it states that energy is not being created and destroyed. Matter can be converted to energy, but the sum total of matter and energy cannot be changed. This implies that the universe could not have created itself. If it had a beginning, it must have been created by a 'cause' outside of itself using processes, which are not operative today. The Big Bang Theory postulates that the cosmic egg existed without any Creator, which contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics. Creation states that on the seventh day God stopped all creation work (Bible, Genesis 2:2), so no new matter or energy is being created; and that since 'God is upholding all things by the word of his power' (Bible, Hebrews 1:3), it is not being destroyed either. The belief in Creation by God is more in harmony with the First Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law gives a more fascinating comparison. It states that all physical systems, left to themselves tend to become disordered and chaotic. Disorder is referred to in thermodynamics as 'entropy' - and entropy always increases with time. Given time and no external force, everything deteriorates, decays and dies. Now the Big Bang Theory claims that this ordered universe came out of a chaotic explosion, thus contradicting the Second Law. In fact, at this point, not only the Big Bang, but also the whole Theory of Evolution contradicts the Second Law! Whereas according to Biblical Creation, when man sinned, God cursed the earth and subjected it to decay and death. Time's arrow is pointing downwards in complete harmony with the Second Law. So we have two basic universal well-proven laws of science in complete contradiction to Evolution, but in complete harmony with Creation.

Some evolutionists try to get out of this corner by one of two ways: they either say that the Laws of Thermodynamics are not universal, that is there might be situations wherein the Laws don't hold, or they resort to the 'open system' argument saying that the laws do not hold for an open system where external energy can be pumped into the system. As far as the first argument is concerned, science is based on observation. The two laws are known to be valid when applied to all mass-energy systems and processes in observable space and time. The Laws of Thermodynamics are Science. A theory based on an unobserved, imaginary contradiction to millions of consistent experimental observations cannot be classified as science. At best, it can be called a theory awaiting confirmation, at worst a pipe dream contradicting all scientific observation.

The argument about the open system is defeated by the Third Law of Thermodynamics which states that order is maximum at absolute zero (-273 degrees Centigrade) because there the entropy is zero. This implies that adding raw heat energy to an open system will only increase the disorder. The assumption that an explosion could produce order contradicts this law. A further assumption that this explosion resulted in a uniform radial expansion of energy and matter contradicts another scientific law - the Principle of Conservation of Angular Momentum. This principle states that uniform radial motion could never give rise to curvilinear motion. Hence the assumption that a linearly expanding gas converted into orbiting galaxies and planetary systems is just not possible according to this law.

Furthermore, the Law of Cause and Effect states that for every effect there must be a cause, which is superior in every aspect. So the universe (effect) needs a cause which is outside it and is superior to it.

Besides all these contradictions, there is also a huge basic credibility problem with the Big Bang Theory. The calculated conservative estimate of the mass of the universe is 8 x 10²⁵ tons. The idea that a speck of matter smaller than a dust particle could have accommodated the condensed mass of the entire universe strains credibility. No wonder that many scientists themselves question it. Yet it is taught as undisputed fact in our schools.

Many people try to prove that God exists by using the analogy of a watch. When you see the insides of a well-functioning watch, you do conclude that there must be someone who created it. Similarly they say that when you see a well-functioning universe or our well-functioning bodies which seem to be well planned, it proves that there is a God behind it all. But it really doesn't. A perfectly functioning universe does not prove the existence of a Creator-God. All it shows is that a belief that there is a Creator-God behind a perfectly functioning universe is more reasonable, more logical, more sensible, and better fitting with observations, than a belief that the universe came into being by itself; just as it is more reasonable, more sensible, more logical and better fitting with observations to believe that if there is a well-functioning watch, there must be a maker behind it. If I tear a piece of paper and the next day you find it stuck together, what is your reasonable belief - that someone stuck it together, or that it came together on its own? Of course that someone stuck it together. You have no proof that someone actually did stick it together when you were not looking; and it may have actually got stuck together on its own! But you would consider that possibility to be a most ridiculous one! What is more ridiculous is the number of people who believe, without any proof and all indications to the contrary, that the universe came together on its own without any external force!

Thus in conclusion, the Theory of Evolution, and the Big Bang Theory are neither logical nor rational nor scientific. Evolution does not follow good common sense, and it is not good science either! It has not been tested and proved experimentally, as all science must be. It is a hypothesis, a proposed theory, and not an established fact. It has been modified and revised many times (e.g. Darwinism and neo-Darwinism). It has been accepted and retained in spite of contrary evidence, and lack of proof or rigorous test, almost as if the desire to hold on to the theory makes people blind to all the evidence against it; almost as if the alternative, that of a Creator God, is unthinkable.

The Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory have been propagated as fact whereas they are fiction. Evolutionists want us to believe that it simply happened on its own billions of years ago assuming that by going back to the dark past, no one will be able to question them! It requires much more than faith to believe in the Theory of Evolution. It requires credulity!

The theory of Evolution is presented as an established, unquestionable fact in school textbooks, just like other History. We are also bombarded with so-called 'evidence' of evolution by teachers, professors, textbooks, museums, articles in 'respectable' science magazines, and educational programs on radio and television. Many programs on otherwise good channels like Discovery, National Geographic, and Animal Planet talk in terms which assume the Theory of Evolution as proven fact. In the light of such bombardment, it is good to be aware of the truth and to know that the amount of scientific evidence in support of the Theory of Evolution is negligible. And that whatever hard evidence exists, actually goes against the Theory!