- Something from nothing?
The "Big Bang", the most widely accepted
theory of the beginning of the universe, states that everything developed from
a small dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation which exploded,
forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. Where did this energy/matter come
from? How reasonable is it to assume it came into being from nothing? And even
if it did come into being, what would cause it to explode?
We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and
lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a "big bang"
explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing "information", order and
the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually
people?
- Physical laws an accident?
We know the universe is governed by
several fundamental physical laws, such as electromagnetic forces, gravity,
conservation of mass and energy, etc. The activities of our universe depend
upon these principles like a computer program depends upon the existence of
computer hardware with an instruction set. How reasonable is it to say that
these great controlling principles developed by accident?
- Order from disorder?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the
most verified law of science. It states that systems become more disordered
over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order.
Evolutionists says that the opposite has taken place - that order increased
over time, without any directed energy. How can this be?
ASIDE: Evolutionists commonly object that the Second Law applies to closed,
or isolated systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed system (it
gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, for example). However, all
systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example,
living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the
universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang
has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections
is a clear violation of the Second Law.
We should also point out that the availability of raw energy to a
system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease
in entropy to occur. Certainly the application of a blow torch to bicycle
parts will not result in a bicycle being assembled - only the careful
application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person
following a plan. The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the
evolutionist's problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth,
contrary to the Second Law.
- Information from Randomness?
Information theory states that
"information" never arises out of randomness or chance events. Our
human experience verifies this every day. How can the origin of the tremendous
increase in information from simple organisms up to man be accounted for?
Information is always introduced from the outside. It is impossible for
natural processes to produce their own actual information, or meaning, which
is what evolutionists claim has happened. Random typing might produce the
string "dog", but it only means something to an intelligent observer who has
applied a definition to this sequence of letters. The generation of
information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims that no
intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being whose
many systems contain vast amounts of information.
- Life from dead chemicals?
Evolutionists claim that life formed
from non-life (dead chemicals), so-called "abiogenesis", even though it is a
biological law ("biogenesis") that life only comes from life. The probability
of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from
non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be
essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized
particles that could fit in the entire visible universe! Given these odds, is
it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?
- Complex DNA and RNA by chance?
The continued existence (the
reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA (the "plan") and RNA (the "copy
mechanism"), both of which are tremendously complex. How reasonable is it to
believe that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance
at exactly the same time?
- Life is complex.
We know and appreciate the tremendous amount of
intelligent design and planning that went into landing a man on the moon. Yet
the complexity of this task pales in comparison to the complexity of even the
simplest life form. How reasonable is it to believe that purely natural
processes, with no designer, no intelligence, and no
plan, produced a human being.
- Where are the transitional fossils?
If evolution has taken place
our museums should be overflowing with the skeletons of countless transitional
forms. Yet after over one hundred years of intense searching only a small
number of transitional candidates are touted as proof of evolution. If
evolution has really taken place, where are the transitional forms? And why
does the fossil record actually show all species first appearing fully formed,
with most nearly identical to current instances of the species?
ASIDE: Most of the examples touted by evolutionists concentrate on just one
feature of the anatomy, like a particular bone or the skull. A true
transitional fossil should be intermediate in many if not all aspects. The
next time someone shows you how this bone changed over time, ask them about
the rest of the creature too!
Many evolutionists still like to believe in the "scarcity" of the fossil
record. Yet simple statistics will show that given you have found a number of
fossil instances of a creature, the chances that you have missed every
one of its imagined predecessors is very small. Consider the trilobites
for example. These fossils are so common you can buy one for under $20, yet
no fossils of a predecessor have been found!.
- Could an intermediate even survive?
Evolution requires the
transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don't forget that
"natural selection" is supposed to retain those individuals which have
developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between
one kind and another even survive (and why would it ever be selected for),
when it would not be well-suited to either its old environment or its new
environment? Can you even imagine a possible sequence of small changes
which takes a creature from one kind to another, all the while keeping it not
only alive, but improved?
ASIDE: Certainly a "light-sensitive spot" is better than no vision at all.
But why would such a spot even develop? (evolutionists like to take this for
granted). And even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot
eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye strains
all common sense and experience.
- Reproduction without reproduction?
A main tenet of evolution is
the idea that things develop by an (unguided) series of small changes, caused
by mutations, which are "selected" for, keeping the "better" changes" over a
very long period of time. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without
the ability to reproduce? Can you even imagine a theoretical scenario
which would allow this to happen? And why would evolution produce two sexes,
many times over? Asexual reproduction would seem to be more likely and
efficient!
ASIDE: To relegate the question of reproduction to "abiogenesis" does NOT
address the problem. To assume existing, reproducing life for the principles
of evolution to work on is a HUGE assumption which is seldom focused on in
popular discussions.
- Plants without photosynthesis?
The process of photosynthesis in
plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already
possessed this remarkable capability?
- How do you explain symbiotic relationships?
There are many
examples of plants and animals which have a "symbiotic" relationship (they
need each other to survive). How can evolution explain this?
- It's no good unless it's complete.
We know from everyday
experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete, whether
it be a car, a cake, or a computer program. Why would natural selection start
to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or anything else) when this item would
not benefit the animal until it was completed?
ASIDE: Note that even a "light-sensitive spot" or the simplest version
of any feature is far from a "one-jump" change that is trivial to
produce.
- Explain metamorphosis!
How can evolution explain the
metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the caterpillar evolves into the "mass of
jelly" (out of which the butterfly comes), wouldn't it appear to be "stuck"?
- It should be easy to show evolution.
If evolution is the grand
mechanism that has produced all natural things from a simple gas, surely this
mechanism must be easily seen. It should be possible to prove its existence in
a matter of weeks or days, if not hours. Yet scientists have been bombarding
countless generations of fruit flies with radiation for several decades in
order to show evolution in action and still have only produced ... more
(deformed) fruit flies. How reasonable is it to believe that evolution is a
fact when even the simplest of experiments has not been able to document it?
ASIDE: The artificial creation of a new species is far too small of a
change to prove that true "macro-evolution" is possible. A higher-order
change, where the information content of the organism has been
increased should be showable and is not. Developing a new species changes
the existing information, but does not add new information, such as would be
needed for a new organ, for example.
- Complex things require intelligent design folks!
People are
intelligent. If a team of engineers were to one day design a robot which could
cross all types of terrain, could dig large holes, could carry several times
its weight, found its own energy sources, could make more robots like itself,
and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would marvel at this achievement. All of
our life's experiences lead us to know that such a robot could never come
about by accident, or assemble itself by chance, even if all of
the parts were available laying next to each other. And we are certain beyond
doubt that a canister of hydrogen gas, no matter how long we left it
there or what type of raw energy we might apply to it, would never result in
such a robot being produced. But we already have such a "robot" - it is called
an "ant", and we squash them because they are "nothing" compared to people.
And God made them, and he made us. Can there be any other explanation?