Evolution: Darwin’s Impossible Theory
By Katie Benson Pennington
Every civilization since the beginning of time, from the Eskimos to the Polynesians, has asked the same question: where did our world come from? The ancient Egyptians believed that a complex system of gods was responsible for earth and everything in it, while the ancient Greeks held that a divine race known as the Titans controlled all. The populace of Central America believed in greedy, vengeful gods; thus, they attempted to appease them with human sacrifices, while the Siamese believed that the world rode on the back of a giant turtle. Throughout the world, every culture invented its own explanation for the origin of life.
Evolution is yet another fabricated explanation—the result of man seeking to avoid any and all accountability. In 1859, Charles Darwin challenged the standard, distinctly Christian explanation of how life began with a theory all his own, which later became known as Evolution. Today his followers postulate that life is the result of a big bang (literally), followed by millions upon millions of years of natural selection and evolution. So, what caused this seemingly random explosion? Answer: all matter in the universe was at one time compressed into a tiny particle of matter, which under extreme pressure exploded, spewing its contents, which then morphed into single-celled organisms called phyla (life forms). How is an explosion (which heretofore has been considered destructive, not productive) responsible for all life? Creationist scientist Ker C. Thompson, author of Physical Laws Support Creationism, best summarizes Evolution’s biological miracle (No other word accurately describes it): "Through natural selection’s operation over vast periods of time, fortuitous favorable events happened that brought successively more complex biological chemicals, which again, either fortuitously or through some undefined inherent property of matter, concatenated, leading upward to protocells, cells, living creatures, and then man himself."
This theory is in direct opposition to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is this: all isolated matter in the universe is undergoing a continual process of decay; thus, entropy (chaos) in the universe is always increasing. This law is fundamental to our existence. While Evolutionists claim that matter is capable of organizing itself into complex organisms, this law proclaims it to be utterly impossible. The theory of Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics are irreconcilable.
Life did not originate from nothing. The idea that life is the result of a designer is known as Creationism, and in recent years a new scientific movement has arisen, known as Intelligent Design (ID), for the express purpose of defending it. Thompson accurately summarizes the position of Creationism: "Ongoing processes of nature are not a sufficient explanation for the origin of our planet, and the complex variable life forms that it sustains. Creationism proposes that a creative mind, superior to anything we have experienced, is the origin of our observable universe and all the functions therein." In addition to this, Thompson points out that even many Evolutionists do admit that evolutionary processes are statistically highly improbable and are only credible when allowed volumes of time for the events which supposedly lead to current life on earth.
This premise of Evolution, that all matter currently evident is the result of spontaneous, progressive coincidences over extended periods of time—upwards of billions of years—is flawed to the core. Anyone considering Evolution must consider probability. What are the odds that everything necessary for a cell to mutate and reproduce on its own would coincide at precisely the right moment, thus giving us a slightly more complex cell? What are the odds of this process repeating itself until the result was modern-day man?
The theory of Specified Complexity, presented by Intelligent Design, is based on probability and states that certain biological structures could not have coincidentally emerged because they are far too complex. Another theory that blasts holes in the arguments of Evolution is Irreducible Complexity—the idea that some molecular systems cannot be broken down into smaller functioning units and thus could not be the result of natural selection. Based on these theories, it is statistically and biologically impossible for Evolution to have occurred.
Mutation, gene duplication, natural and sexual selection, migration, and genetic drift—these are all tools used by Evolutionists to build the idea that all species have accidentally evolved. However, not one of these changes of genetics steps out of the pre-existing genetic potential. They are biological phenomena, nothing more; yet Evolutionists claim that mutations (which are excessively rare) are examples of spontaneous evolution. What they fail to point out is that in recorded history, no mutation has ever had a positive outcome. Whenever a gene mutates, it is almost always for the worse. In fact, the mutation of an organism virtually always so drastically damages the organism that it becomes incapable of reproducing, and may even be fatal. Only in science fiction movies do mutations ever result in a species of higher life forms.
For the sake of perspective, let us pretend that the earth is billions of years old, and that millions of years ago, an organism mutated, without dying, into a higher life form. This is a highly improbable assumption, yet Darwinism depends upon it. The assumptions do not stop here. Unless the exact same mutation happens to two separate organisms within the same timeframe, and these newly mutated life forms miraculously find each other so that they may procreate, the evolution of life is stopped cold. At this point, the word "if" has been interjected so many times that the chances of this scenario ever actually occurring are statistically impossible.
Amidst all the theories and conjecture of Evolution, the Missing Links alone are the evidence that could make or break Darwin’s theory. They are a fundamental puzzle piece upon which Evolutionists stake all their claims. Disprove them, and Evolution loses the legs upon which it stands, for what is the theory without evidence? Much controversy and speculation shrouds the famed Australopithicus, Neanderthal Man, Nebraska Man, and Ramapithicus, while Michael Oard, author of Frozen in Time, addresses this issue: "If man descended from the apes or an ape-like creature, over several million years, a multitude of fossils should be found… Paleoanthropologists, as missing link hunters, are called, have combed the world for over 100 years expending huge amounts of time and money in their search for the missing links. Indeed, they have found a few candidates, but the number is rather small, and the interpretation of the fossil scrapes is open to debate."
Hoaxes of every kind have been passed off as the missing link between modern humans and apes. For instance, the Nebraska man, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 and touted to be a tremendous revelation in the scientific community, turned out to be nothing more then a tooth of a pig. From this tooth, Paleoanthropologists had constructed first jaw, then a skull, then a spinal chord, until they had literally custom-designed the creature that they desperately sought-our "ancestor"- the missing link. More examples of Evolutionist’s fraud are Ramapithicus, who proved to be merely an extinct ape, and the Neanderthal man, who turned out in actuality to be a race of man that died out thousands of years ago.
The great granddaddy of all the missing links is Autstralopithicus. This fossil, and its kissing cousin, Lucy, have both been proffered as proof positive of Darwin’s theory because of their supposed ability to walk upright, and other "human-like" characteristics. However, new examination of the elbow revealed that this famed ape-man was in reality a knuckle walker, not unlike modern apes. Once again, Evolution’s solid evidence, destined to profoundly change the world of science and beyond, has proved faulty. Yet rather than admit defeat, Evolutionists have relegated this new revelation as a "throwback from a previous ancestor". And since the theory of Evolution has at its disposal unlimited coincidences and billions of years, no claim is too implausible.
Is it responsible to assume that our entire existence is the result of Evolution, which is dependent upon great lengths of time and incredible coincidences? Great faith is required in order to believe in Darwin’s theory, because it is so impossible. Thus, one could say that Evolutionists are men of faith. Yet, Evolutionists seek to discredit the ID movement and Creationists in general, calling them "religious zealots," and claiming that their credibility is tainted by their belief.
Consider the motives behind each faction. Intelligent Design submits that the universe was designed and did not just sporadically appear. This means that we are here for a reason, that life has a purpose. Evolutionists will to their last breath refute the possibility that we are here for any reason other than chance simply because if life really is not a coincidence, it must have been designed; and if it were designed, there must be a purpose; and if there is a purpose for life, every individual is faced with accountability. Many people enter the debate with a motive: they want to believe that chance is the final answer because they desperately wish to avoid dealing with their consciences. So, in the same way that Creationists may be tainted by assumptions and motivations, Evolutionists are tainted with the desire to remove personal accountability.
It truly takes little faith to find God when there is so much evidence of His handiwork surrounding us in the natural world. Compared to the broad assumptions and huge leaps of faith necessary to sustain Evolution, Christians have little to defend and rather should take the offensive. Any objective analysis of the evidence reveals that Darwin’s theory has too many gaps to be a plausible explanation for the origin of life and its diversity. In reality, Evolution is a pseudo-science because it relies upon enormous coincidences that are infinitely improbable. "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9).