{"id":30131,"date":"2024-08-01T11:58:03","date_gmt":"2024-08-01T16:58:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/?p=30131"},"modified":"2025-11-14T14:03:26","modified_gmt":"2025-11-14T20:03:26","slug":"4-reasons-to-believe-evolution-is-not-true","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/apologeticspress.org\/4-reasons-to-believe-evolution-is-not-true\/","title":{"rendered":"4 Reasons to Believe Evolution is NOT True"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Bible does not allow evolution to be true, so theistic evolution is not an option.1<\/sup><\/a> Therefore, either Creation is true or God-less evolution is true. But there is no evidence to support the self-creation of the Universe, matter and energy, or the laws of science.2<\/sup><\/a> Nor is there evidence that the Universe is as old as is required by evolutionary theory.3<\/sup><\/a> In fact, there are scientific evidences which just as easily provide support for a young<\/strong> Universe.4<\/sup><\/a> And yet, cosmic evolution is still accepted by many as a legitimate scientific explanation for the Universe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problems with evolutionary theory, however, do not stop with the origin, age, and evolution of the Universe itself. Biological evolution (or \u201cmacroevolution\u201d) is just as much a problem as is cosmic evolution.5<\/sup><\/a> At some point(s) in the past, if evolution is true, life must have arisen from lifelessness and somehow changed into all species which have ever roamed planet Earth. Does the evidence support biological evolution?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Problem #1: Life from Non-life<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Before life can evolve, life has to exist. If evolution is true, that first life had to come about from non-life, a phenomenon called \u201cabiogenesis\u201d or \u201cspontaneous generation.\u201d Abiogenesis, however, has long been acknowledged to be an unprovable, though necessary, part of evolution. In 1960 G.A. Kerkut published The Implications of Evolution<\/em>. Therein he listed seven non-provable assumptions<\/strong> upon which evolution is based. \u201cThe first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.\u201d6<\/sup><\/a> In spite of the admission that evolution is based on non-provable assumptions, many today in the evolutionary community boldly assert that their theory is a scientific fact. However, the unbiased observer must ask: what does the scientific evidence actually have to say about the origin of life?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The work of various scientists over the centuries disproved the superstitious idea that life can come from non-life (e.g., Francesco Redi and Lazzaro Spallanzani). Louis Pasteur is generally acknowledged to be the scientist whose experiments drove nails into the proverbial abiogenesis coffin. Even standard evolution-based high school biology textbooks have historically acknowledged that fact. For example, one such popular textbook stated, \u201cIt was not until 1864, and the elegant experiment of French scientist Louis Pasteur, that the hypothesis of spontaneous generation was finally disproved<\/strong>.\u201d7<\/sup><\/a> They acknowledged that, \u201cPasteur, like Redi and Spallanzani before him, had shown that life comes only from life<\/strong>.\u201d8<\/sup><\/a> This truth is so absolute that it has been deemed a scientific law: the Law of Biogenesis. Evolutionist George G. Simpson, one of the most influential paleontologists of the 20th<\/sup> century, articulated well the findings of science: \u201c[T]here is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule<\/strong>, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always<\/strong> and exclusively<\/strong> the product or offspring of another cell.\u201d9<\/sup><\/a> Though many attempts have since been made to initiate life from non-life, none have succeeded<\/strong>. Leading evolutionary biologists have been forced to acknowledge, therefore, that abiogenesis is \u201cimpossible,\u201d \u201cabsurd,\u201d and an \u201cobsolete concept,\u201d10<\/sup><\/a> but without it, evolution cannot even get started!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Notice the following acknowledgements by leading evolutionists over the years. Evolutionist and Nobel Laureate, George Wald, of Harvard University wrote: \u201cAs for spontaneous generation, it continued to find acceptance until finally\u00a0disposed of<\/strong>\u00a0by the work of Louis Pasteur.\u201d11<\/sup><\/a> He further admitted, \u201cOne has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is\u00a0impossible<\/strong>. Yet here we are, as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.\u201d12<\/sup><\/a> Notice that his belief in spontaneous generation is not based on the actual evidence but, instead, on blind faith in evolution in spite of the evidence. In the lecture series,\u00a0Origins of Life<\/em>,13<\/sup><\/a> evolutionary geologist Robert Hazen made notable admissions: \u201cThe origin of life is a subject of immense complexity, and I have to tell you right up front,\u00a0we don\u2019t know how life began<\/strong>.\u201d <\/sup><\/a>\u201cHow can I tell you about the origin of life when we are\u00a0so woefully ignorant<\/strong>\u00a0of that history?\u201d Evolutionists do not know how life could emerge from non-life within their naturalistic theory, but they believe in it anyway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Evolutionist Paul Davies, theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist, and professor at Arizona State University, writing in\u00a0New Scientist<\/em>, said, \u201cOne of the great outstanding scientific mysteries<\/strong> is the origin of life. How did it happen?\u2026The truth is,\u00a0nobody has a clue<\/strong>.\u201d14<\/sup><\/a> Evolutionist John Horgan did not even try to veil his admission within<\/strong> an article. He titled<\/strong> one of his articles, \u201cPssst! Don\u2019t Tell the Creationists, but Scientists\u00a0Don\u2019t Have a Clue How Life Began<\/strong>.\u201d15<\/sup><\/a> Such admissions are quite telling, albeit incorrect. What Davies and Horgan mean is, no\u00a0naturalistic evolutionist<\/strong>\u00a0\u201chas a clue.\u201d Biblical\u00a0super<\/strong>naturalists, on the other hand, know\u00a0exactly<\/strong>\u00a0how life originated, and the answer harmonizes perfectly with the Law of Biogenesis\u2014unlike evolution\u2019s life-origins fairytale. If one sticks with the evidence, he must conclude that to believe life can come from non-life would be irrational, unscientific, and requires blind faith in evolution.16<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Problem #2: The Nature of the First Life<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Life coming from non-life, in actuality, is the \u201ceasy\u201d part. The difficulty of getting life from non-life is so overwhelming that we usually fail to realize other daunting aspects of the equation that compound the difficulty of the problem for evolutionists. The distinguished British astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle, once highlighted the gravity of the abiogenesis problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik’s cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cubic faces at random. Now imagine 1050<\/sup>\u00a0blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik’s cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all\u00a0simultaneously<\/strong>\u00a0arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling at just one<\/strong> of the many<\/strong> biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only biopolymers but the operating programme<\/strong> of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense<\/strong> of a high order.17<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The arrival of life on Earth from non-life is problematic enough, but life cannot exist without an actual \u201coperating program\u201d that tells it how to function once it exists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem does not stop there, either. What would happen to the first life if it could not reproduce itself? Famous evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins stated in an interview with Ben Stein regarding the origin of life, \u201cNobody knows<\/strong>\u00a0how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life. It was the origin of the first self-replicating<\/strong> molecule.\u201d Obviously, the first life had to already have the functionality to reproduce: yet another hurdle that would be impossible for evolution to jump. Stein asked Dawkins, \u201cRight. And how did that happen?\u201d Dawkins replied, \u201cI\u2019ve told you. We don\u2019t know.\u201d Stein then said, \u201cSo, you have no idea how it started?\u201d Dawkins replied, \u201cNo.\u00a0Nor has anybody<\/strong>.\u201d18<\/sup><\/a> John Keosian, biology professor at Rutgers University, said, \u201cEven conceptually<\/strong>, it is difficult to see how a system satisfying the minimum criteria for a living thing can arise by chance and, simultaneously, include a mechanism containing the suitable information for its own replication<\/strong>.\u201d19<\/sup><\/a> We agree. \u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another problem exists when considering what would have to occur for abiogenesis to be possible. The biomolecules of life generally are only found in one (out of two) of the main three-dimensional biomolecule configurations\u2014a scenario called homochirality. However, as biochemist Joe Deweese of Freed-Hardeman University noted, \u201cin a pre-biotic system (one where life does not yet exist) there is no clear mechanism for preferentially causing the formation of one chiral form over another. This means there is no homochirality<\/strong>. Instead, when chemicals react in experimental systems, researchers tend to get mixtures of L- and D- [i.e., \u201cright-handed\u201d and \u201cleft-handed\u201d\u2014JM] forms of molecules,\u201d20<\/sup><\/a> a dilemma called the \u201chomochirality problem\u201d by origin-of-life scientists. Experimental evidence does not support the contention that abiogenesis occurred.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No wonder abiogenesis is deemed by many evolutionists to require a \u201cmiracle\u201d that requires blind faith on the part of the evolutionist to accept.21<\/sup><\/a> But the problem for evolutionists does not stop there, either. Evolutionist John Maddox, writing in Nature<\/em>, said, \u201c[I]t is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code<\/strong> is still as obscure as the origin of life itself.\u201d22<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Problem #3: The Origin of Genetic Information<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Darwin believed that \u201cnatural selection\u201d would serve as a mechanism to make evolution happen. However, in the immortal words of Dutch evolutionary botanist Hugo de Vries, \u201cNatural selection may explain the survival<\/strong> of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival<\/strong> of the fittest.\u201d23<\/sup><\/a> Natural selection is simply a \u201cfiltering mechanism\u201d that eliminates those species that are not as well suited to an environment as another species. Those species must already exist<\/strong>, however, in order for them to be filtered. What natural mechanism could create<\/strong> the species in the first place?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mainstream evolutionary thinking today is that genetic mutations coupled with natural selection will create the best fit species, a belief known as \u201cNeo-Darwinism.\u201d Once again, however, genes must already exist in order for them to be mutated. Where did the first, \u201csimple\u201d genome come from? And how could new genetic information (i.e., new \u201craw material\u201d) be subsequently spontaneously created naturally as the original life forms morphed into other life forms? In the words of the late, famous evolutionary paleontologist of Harvard University, Stephen Jay Gould, \u201cA mutation doesn\u2019t produce major new raw material<\/strong>. You don\u2019t make a new species by mutating the species\u2026. That\u2019s a common idea people have; that evolution is due to random mutations. A mutation is not the cause of evolutionary change.\u201d24<\/sup><\/a> If a living thing does not already have the genetic code to grow new parts, it cannot grow them, because that would require new raw material.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consider the analogy of making a digital copy of a file from a computer onto a flash drive. When a file is copied, \u201cmutations\u201d can sometimes occur. The file does not always copy properly. The final copy is not always exactly like the original. Codon errors, duplications, translocations, deletions, and other mutations exist in genetics\u2014errors that cause the final copy to be \u201cmutated.\u201d Do such mutations add new raw material? Do they \u201cwrite a new sentence\u201d in the file? No. A mutation might cause a fly to have extra wings (homeotic mutations) or a person to have an extra toe (polydactyly), but mutations do not create a new feature or a new creature. A mutation would not cause a wing to appear on a creature, for example, unless the creature already had wings in its genome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why? Because when the structure of the DNA molecule was discovered in the twentieth century, James Watson and Francis Crick \u201cdiscovered that DNA stores information<\/strong> using a four-character chemical alphabet. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions\u2014the information<\/strong>\u2014for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive.\u201d25<\/sup><\/a> Information is packed into our genes, and yet, in the words of information scientist Werner Gitt of the Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, \u201cThere is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.\u201d26<\/sup><\/a> Bottom line: evolution has no way of getting life from non-life, and no way to evolve it into something different when it arrives. Once again, the evolutionist must rely on blind faith to hold his position.27<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Problem #4: Insufficient Evidence for Evolution<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In order for a belief to be \u201crational,\u201d it must have sufficient supporting evidence. After all, the Law of Rationality states that one should only draw those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence<\/strong>.28<\/sup><\/a> Biblical creation is rational, since it is based on evidence that the Bible is of divine origin.29<\/sup><\/a> Is belief in evolution a rational<\/strong> belief or a blind<\/strong> faith? Where is the evidence for evolution?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When a student takes \u201cBiology\u201d class in public high school or college, he will most likely find a section in his textbook listing alleged evidences for evolution. Upon closer examination, without exception, these evidences can be categorized as being one of three possibilities: erroneous, irrelevant, or inadequate. Consider the following commonly listed evidences for macroevolution:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Category 1: Erroneous Evidences<\/h3>\n\n\n\n