The purpose of this article is to be an introduction to the ideas and reasoning that oppose the theory of evolution, and also the evolutionist dogma that has been implanted in our society and in the scientific community that there is no valid, logical evidence against evolution. My intent is to inspire the reader to further and more in-depth research, as there are already many resources available that are fare more extensive than I am able to make this article.

Before deciding on evolution's validity, we must understand its claims. According to evolution theory, life began billions of years ago when Earth's environment started to become rich with the chemicals that form the building blocks of life. Over long periods of time, more and more complex organic molecules began to form in nature, eventually culminating in the first single-celled organisms. Over the billions of years to follow, these organisms gave rise to more and more complex life forms, eventually resulting in man and all the biodiversity we see in our world today. This biological advancement took place, supposedly, because once in a great while an organism would have an offspring with a genetic mutation that gave it some new ability that made it more likely to survive and reproduce than the rest of its species. This process is called natural selection, or "survival of the fittest" - organisms with more advantageous genetic traits would thrive, while organisms without them would eventually die out, causing life forms in general to become more and more advanced over many generations as favorable mutations accumulated.

The problem comes when this theory is closely examined, and the details of its workings are dissected. While evolutionists claim this theory is supported by "overwhelming observational evidence", it turns out to be much more like "overwhelming unsupported assumption". Many of the basic processes required for evolution rest solely on unproven or unprovable assumptions and theoretical processes that fall apart upon close examination.

Darwinian evolution offers a theory on how species could have changed and become more advanced and complex, but perhaps the biggest question that evolution philosophy has to answer is that of how life arose in the first place from non-living material (a process known as abiogenesis). If all life forms can trace their lineage back to a single original organism, it must be asked where that organism came from.

Although they're loath to admit it to their creationist opponents, evolutionist scientists know that it's not rational to say that the molecules in a puddle of primordial ooze randomly mixed together to form the first living cell. The theory is that there must be some unknown force of nature that favors the formation and assembly of the building blocks of life under the right conditions (coupled with lots and lots of time). In the 1950s, the Miller-Urey experiments attempted to uncover this force.

In these experiments, scientists replicated what they thought the atmosphere of primordial Earth was like in a test environment, and added an electric spark to simulate the effects of lightening interacting with chemicals in the atmosphere over time. The result was that 13 out of the 22 amino acids that make up the proteins in living cells were formed ⁽¹⁾. The problem here, of course, is that producing a hand full of the amino acids necessary for life is a far cry from producing a living cell from non-living material in the lab. Where are the rest of the amino acids you need to make the proteins found in living cells? And where is the natural process that, once these amino acids are formed, assembles them into proteins, and the proteins into the organelles and other components of a cell, and those components into a whole cell? Claiming this experiment proves abiogenesis is like saying "we've found natural processes that produce rock and iron, and that proves the natural formation of sky-scrapers with no intelligent builders".

This experiment, however, has been proffered as irrefutable proof of evolution in science classrooms for decades. "But evolution has been experimentally verified!" evolutionists have told me, referring to Miller-Urey. The dogma surrounding the Miller-Urey experiments is yet another example of the wide-scale acceptance of evolution being based mostly on popular misconception. Even in the scientific community, there is much doubt over the validity of the these experiments, because some scientists' idea of what Earth's atmosphere would have been like billions of years ago is drastically different than the atmosphere simulated in the Miller-Urey experiments, and would have been far more hostile to the formation of life as we know it⁽²⁾.

The basic process that drives Darwinian evolution is Natural Selection, a.k.a. Survival of the Fittest. The idea is that once an organism has gained a beneficial new trait (such as an ability to better evade predators or better catch prey), that organism is much more likely to survive and reproduce than its competing life forms. The less-well-adapted life forms cannot compete, leaving the more advanced organisms to become abundant. There is nothing wrong with this idea itself, and indeed this "micro-evolution" can be seen in nature (though not nearly to the extent desired by evolutionists). The problem comes when we try to use micro-evolution to explain "mega-evolution", or the changing of one type of life form into a completely different type of life form (for instance, reptiles evolving into birds).

The first big hurdle is that, in order for natural selection to take place, some change in an organism must have already taken place through random mutation. The question then is not just "Is this change beneficial enough to give this life form a greater chance of surviving?", but also "Is it logical to think this change ever could have occurred naturally?". This is where evolution theory starts to break down… actually, it's more like spin out, hit the rail, and burst into flame. The kinds of changes necessary to turn fish into amphibians, reptiles into birds, and hominids into men - no matter how advantageous these changes would have been to their respective species - are completely beyond the bounds of believability, let alone proven fact.

The odds of a single mutation taking place (that is, a mistake in the copying of piece of DNA) is about 1 in 10,000,000 (10⁷) duplications^[9]. In order for a species to evolve some radically new feature, there must be not just mutations, but mutations in genes that are related to each other with respect to that feature. So what are the odds of two mutations that are related to each other? To determine that, you multiply the probabilities for each individual mutation. So for two mutations, that's 10⁷ x 10⁷ = 10¹⁴. Three mutations? 10⁷ x 10⁷ x 10⁷ = 10²¹. Four mutations works out to 10²⁸. That's one chance in one followed by 28 zeros! And that's just for four related mutations, which certainly isn't nearly enough to form the basis of even one completely new biological feature, such as a fish growing legs and walking on land.

Let's examine, for further example, how reptiles supposedly evolved into birds. Are we to believe that a lizard laid an egg one day, and a bird hatched out? Certainly not… that's too unfathomable of a random mutation even for evolutionists to believe. Evolution would have us believe that the mutations that could change reptiles into birds happened gradually, one at a time, over thousands or millions of years. So, perhaps what happened is that one day a lizard laid an egg and its offspring simply had feathers instead of scales. But feathers themselves are incredibly complex, highly specialized structures - still far too complex to have randomly mutated into existence from reptile scales. Let's reduce it even further: perhaps one day a lizard laid an egg, and its offspring had just feather stalks instead of fully developed feathers in place of its scales. Allowing for the sake of argument that it's logical to think this mutation would ever happen (it isn't), we must now ask what evolutionary advantage it poses to this organism. What advantage does a lizard with feather stalks have? None. What is the reptile going to do with feather stalks covering its skin? Probably pluck them out! What is it not going to do with feather stalks covering its skin? Attract mates. This mutation is far too fractional to ever be "naturally selected". It wouldn't last long enough to form the foundation for any further mutations that could accumulate into truly beneficial new features for the species. And all of this is on top of still being astronomically improbable in the first place!

Ask almost any evolution believer (not necessarily actual scientists, just your average Joe-descended-from-monkeys) for solid, scientific proof that life is as old as evolution claims, and his answer will be: "Carbon dating! Carbon dating has been used to accurately date fossils of pre-historic life to millions of years old." I can't tell you how many times I've heard evolutionists make this claim.

Carbon dating works like this^[4]

• In the upper atmosphere, as cosmic rays collide with nitrogen atoms, a certain element called carbon-14 (¹⁴C)^[5] is formed.
• Since this element is in the atmosphere, and all living things take in gasses from the atmosphere (directly or indirectly), all living things have a certain amount of ¹⁴C in them.
• ¹⁴C decays through radioactivity at a known rate. When living things die, they stop taking in ¹⁴C, and so the amount of ¹⁴C in their remains decreases at a certain rate.
• You can compare the amount of ¹⁴C remaining in a biological matter to the amount that living things have in them to determine how long ago something died.

You claim to have done research, and even attempt to cite your sources; however, your information on evolution and its postulations is sorely lacking. You are no different than Michael Moore who takes half-truths and spins them to portray anything he wants them to. Having dealt with your kind before, I know it is futile to try and point out the flaws in your arguments about evolution, as you people always find ways to explain away the glaring scientific evidence logical thinkers produce. Instead I would like to send you out to research another topic: I challenge you to go out and research carbon dating, and find and post on your website the closest thing to irrefutable evidence that carbon dating is inaccurate and unreliable. Carbon dating has been used to accurately date biological matter to hundreds of thousands of years and more, handily disproving the Creationist theory that Earth has only existed for a few thousand years. I'd like to see some solid evidence, not wild accusations.

Even when carbon dating says that a life form is tens of thousands of years old, a fundamental flaw remains: carbon dating is based on unprovable assumptions. Carbon dating assumes that we know how much ¹⁴C life forms had in them when they were alive in the unobservable past. We can't just assume they had the same level of ¹⁴C that they do today, either, because the amount of ¹⁴C being produced is changed considerably by shifts in the Earth's magnetic field, volcanoes, widespread use of fossil fuels, atomic weapons testing, and changes in the upper atmosphere or the Sun. Scientists have tried to calibrate the carbon dating scale to account for the changing levels of ¹⁴C production over the millennia, but outside of calibrating by recorded historical events, these calibration methods are again based on many assumptions and allowances for discrepancies. (One of these methods is dendrochronology. See this page for a description of this practice and why its validity is quite questionable.) The simple truth is that we have no way to know with assured accuracy how much ¹⁴C life forms had in them in the unobservable past, and thus no way to know if the dates given by carbon dating are anywhere near accurate.

One event that would have had a huge impact on ¹⁴C levels was the Great Flood described in Genesis. Creationist scientists think that the atmosphere was far better at blocking cosmic rays before the Flood than it is today, which means that far less ¹⁴C would have been produced before the Flood. This would make life forms that lived before the Flood appear far older than they really are by carbon dating. (And of course evolutionist scientists don't factor the Flood into their carbon dating calibration assumptions.)

While it can't be proven that carbon dating is accurate, it can quite easily be proven that it is inaccurate. There are many recorded instances where carbon dating has given very widely varying dates on the same specimen. For instance, carbon dating one part of a baby mammoth discovered in 1977 yielded a date of 40,000 Radio Carbon Years (RCY); carbon dating another part of the same animal yielded 26,000 RCY; and some wood found around the mammoth was dated to 10,000 RCY ^[6]. Also, substantial amounts of ¹⁴C are often found in fossils supposed to be millions of years old; remember that there shouldn't be significant amounts in anything older than about 60,000 year. Even coal, which is supposed to have been formed by decomposition of organic matter that died up to millions of years ago, still has ¹⁴C in it^[7].

Other methods are used to date rocks, such as argon-argon dating^[8]. (The age of rocks is in turn used to date fossils found in those rocks when the fossils themselves are supposed to be "too old" to date by carbon dating.) We know how long it takes certain isotopes to radioactively decay into certain other isotopes, which then decay into other isotopes, and so on in a chain. Supposedly, then, we can look at what isotopes are present in a rock, and determine how long it's been since the rock solidified and was at the "top" of the radioactive decay chain. But this assumes we know, for instance, that only the "top" isotope was in the rock when it formed, and none of the isotopes that come later in the chain were present at formation or added later from some outside source. Just like carbon dating, these dating methods are based completely on unprovable assumptions.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a law of physics that states that the amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant, matter and energy cannot be either created or destroyed, and that in every action that uses energy an amount of energy is lost and unusable. The last part of the law that I stated is often stated as "the amount of entropy (disorder or chaos) in a closed system always increases". This means that everything in the universe, and even the universe itself, tends to run down and degrade into disorder. This makes evolution an obvious impossibility; the laws of physics dictate that, left to their own devices, things do not build themselves up into more organized or complex things. Random chance mutations cannot turn a simple, single-celled animal into a more complex, multi-celled animal without violating the laws of the universe.

Of course, some evolutionists claim that creationists twist the meaning of the second law of thermodynamics. They claim that evolution does not violate the law because biological organisms are not "closed systems", making it a part of a system or a "sub-system", and that the entropy (disorder) of a sub-system can decrease. Or they will claim that the second law of thermodynamics does not call for a reduction of complexity, but rather just a spreading out of energy. These arguments actually work both independently and together to further disprove evolution. In order for the entropy of a sub-system to decrease, its heat energy⁽³⁾ must also decrease. This means that, if a biological organism is a sub-system, then for a single-celled animal to increase its complexity into a multi-celled animal through random chance it would have to decrease its amount of heat energy. This would result in a multi-celled animal that had the same amount of heat energy stored in its body as the single-celled animal it evolved from. The multi-celled animal would thus wind up having to be only as large or energetic its single-cell predecessor, which would nullify any advantage to the evolution. (A human would have to wind up having either the same size or energy as a bacterium has, an obvious impossibility.) The energy of the organism would indeed have spread out, not increased, just as the second law of thermodynamics predicted (which ever way you try to put it).

Skeptics of the above argument might point to the fact that a human being starts out as a single-cell embryo and turns into a multi-cell mature human, similar to how evolution supposedly worked. However, the growth of an embryo, or any living thing for that matter, is actually opposite from what would happen in evolution. When a living organism grows and matures, its cells divide and grow in an ordered fashion by following the "blue print" in its DNA. In evolution, the opposite happens; a random, un-ordered mutation occurs, which is a change in the organism's structure affected by deviation from its DNA instructions. An embryo growing into a baby is not based on random chances of cell mutation, which are impossible by the laws of physics anyway, while evolution is. This also leads to the fact that most mutations are harmful, not helpful; most mutants either die or are not capable of reproducing. It takes some kind of intelligent control to get favorable mutations; random changes cannot do it according to the second law of thermodynamics. Humans can conceivably create helpful mutations if they know enough about the genetics of what they're messing with, but random chance can not. Also, an embryo growing in the womb constantly has more energy being pumped into it from the mother's body, so it can grow all it wants to without violating the second law of thermodynamics.

I have heard some claims that there are Christians who believe in evolution. The theory of evolution stands in direct contrast to the account of the divine creation of life found in the Biblical book of Genesis. Any Christian who rejects the truth of the Bible does not believe the Bible, and is calling God a liar. Either 100% of the Bible is true or none of it is. One cannot pick-and-choose what portions of the Bible one chooses to believe. If someone believes that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died for our sins and rose again to give us life, they cannot reject the account of Creation without rejecting Jesus as well.

Evolution is just science's best guess as to how life could come to be without God. It is called the theory of evolution because it is nothing more than that: a theory. Evolutionists might point out that there are many scientific laws that have been proven true that we still call "theories". However, in the case of these scientific laws, they have all been observed and verified. Evolution is not observable (as I described in detail above) and is not provable, and therefore will never be able leave the "theory" stage.

The "Big Bang" theory states that the universe began as a tiny point of energy, much smaller than the tiniest parts of atoms. Some event caused this "proto-universe" to explode into the huge universe we inhabit today. Matter, energy, space, and time were created by the explosion. The evidence for this theory, scientists say, is the fact that all the galaxies in the universe are moving away from each other, and that they can detect the leftover ambient radio waves that fill the universe that were produced by the big bang (kind of like an echo, only on a cosmic scale).

The Big Bang does have lots of scientific holes in it because it's presented as a Godless, orderless event. There obviously and logically must be a Divine Creator, even in the event of a "big bang". In order for there to have been a universe for ours to expand from, there first had to be some kind of origin for that proto-universe. It must have been created somehow, and science has so far not been able to come up with any ideas as to how that tiny universe got there in the first place. Also, an explosion that just happens to create an orderly universe is completely illogical. Explosions break down order, they don't build it up; again, there has been an overlooking of the second law of thermodynamics. There must be a God that ordered the explosion, if it really happened, to create energy and matter in the form that we know it today, and to guide that energy and matter into the delicate and complex ways in which they interact on scales from much smaller than atoms to trillions of light years. All one needs to do is look around: at themselves, at the world we live in, at the universe around us, to see the divine wisdom of how the universe is put together. No random process could create stars or galaxies or people, or energy and matter itself. As the Bible says in Psalms 19:1, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament (sky) shows His handiwork."

Scientists tell us that the universe appears to be billions of years old. This is because God created a mature universe. When God made Adam, he didn't create an embryo that grew into an adult, he created a man who was mature as if he had already lived long enough to grow into a man. In the same way, God created the universe in a state as if it had existed long enough to form stars, galaxies, heavy elements, and planets.

The truth of God's creation is found in the Bible, in Genesis, the first book of the Bible (Genesis means "beginning"). God created the universe in six days, and rested from creating on the seventh day. The universe was in a perfect state when God created it, before humans sinned, but when sin was brought into the picture, the universe started to decay. Man became mortal. We badly needed some kind of redemption, which came in the form of Jesus Christ the Son of God to forgive every person of their sins. One day, God will vanquish evil forever, and the universe will be restored to a perfect state.

God created each specie of life on the Earth to reproduce "according to its own kind", not to reproduce genetically deviant mutants that defy the laws of physics and evolve into more advanced life forms. We are the children of God when we put our faith in His Son Jesus Christ, not the children of mud and amoebas. With God we have purpose and life; with evolution life would be a pointless accident, there would be no absolute right or wrong, and when one dies, one would simply cease to exist. God has given us eternal life; if we put our faith in Him, we will enjoy eternity with Him in His perfection.

Here is a quick summary of God's creation process, which can be found in Genesis chapters one and two:

Day 1	The universe and the Earth are created. Earth is formless and useless, and covered with water. Light, and thus Day and Night are created, but the Sun, Moon, and stars do not yet exist.	Day 4	God made the Sun, Moon, and stars to shine in the sky, to give much light during the day and a little light at night, fulfilling the creation from Day 1.
Day 2	God made the atmosphere, separating the water on the surface from the vapors in or above the atmosphere.	Day 5	God made the sea creatures and flying creatures, fulfilling the creation from Day 2.
Day 3	The waters covering the Earth are gathered into the oceans, revealing dry land. God created plant life on the dry ground.	Day 6	God made the land animals, and then created Adam, the first human. This fulfilled the creation from Day 3.

Many people believe that the waters above the atmosphere which the Bible talks about was a water vapor or hydrogen crystal canopy that surrounded the Earth's atmosphere. This canopy was destroyed in the Great Flood and rained down on the Earth. Such a canopy would have provided protection from the rays of the Sun that cause harm to life forms, which would explain how people could have lived for close to 1,000 years before the flood. After the flood, as per the words of God Himself, man's life span dropped over several generations to about 100 years. It should also be noted that it did not rain before the Great Flood; instead, a mist came up from the ground to water the plant life.

The Great Flood, in which Noah built an ark of God's design to save all the species of animals and his family, accounts for the layers of rock found all over the Earth, and the quick fossilization of so many life forms. Such a flood would lay down many layers of sediment rather quickly, but not necessarily in the same uniform order all over the world. It would bury many life forms quickly. It also could create such geological phenomena as the Grand Canyon. The Bible gives indication of massive activity in or under the Earth's crust and in the atmosphere at this time; Genesis 7:11 records "...the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." This would seem to indicate that the seas were flooded by subterranean water sources, which raised the seas and flooded the land, and whatever water was being kept in the atmosphere came down. Although the Bible does not give specific information about where the water "receded" to when the flood ended, some of it obviously evaporated into the atmosphere to form clouds, and thus the "water cycle" that we see today began. As for the rest of the water, it could have receded back into the subterranean areas it came from; or, some theologians think, the ocean floors could have fallen while land masses were pushed up to form the present ocean depths from the flood waters.

Many evolutionists claim that creationists twist the meanings of words and definitions, and do not know enough about evolution to know what they're talking about. These evolutionists also twist words and definitions and do not fully explain things, and often even contradict themselves. In light of all the arguments over evolution versus creation I've ever seen, whether for creation or evolution, it seems to me that believing that evolution created man takes just as much faith, if not much more, as believing the Biblical account of God creating man and the universe, because agnostic views of creation violate so many laws of nature as to make them impossible.

Science is always changing, always learning something more, always modifying what it always swore was right. Every time someone digs up a new fossil, evolutionists must reconsider some part of their theory. In early 2001, a skull was unearthed, and in response to that discovery, scientists declared that the skull was forcing them to rethink everything they thought they knew about evolution. While science can and does change as new discoveries are made (this is not always a bad thing), the Bible has not changed. Ever. Hebrews 13:8 says "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." The testament of God's divine power stands firm in the face of the Enemy's best attempts to use the knowledge of men to defy it. 1. See the Wikipedia article Miller-Urey experiment

2. See the Wikipedia article Miller-Urey experiment

3. Heat energy is not temperature. Temperature, measured in degrees, is the measure of intensity of heat. Heat energy, measured in calories or British Thermal Units, is the measure of amount of heat.

4. See the Wikipedia article Radiocarbon Dating

5. See the Wikipedia article Carbon-14

6. http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon-dating.htm

7. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

8. See the Wikipedia article Argon-Argon Dating

9. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-mutations.asp If you'd like more great Creationist web sites, check out these links:

Creation Science Center
Reasons To Believe -- Astronomical Evidences for the God of the Bible
The Revolution Against Evolution