The Creationist arguments against Evolution

 

I realize that this treatise does not address the big subject of “Creation vs. Evolution”. While I am no expert in the "Creation vs. Evolution" debate, I will say that the Creationist arguments that try to prove that the story of Genesis in the Bible is literal truth is based on the obvious fallacy, mentioned before, that the Bible is the word of God and is an infallible source of authority.

 

But that doesn’t mean that the theory of Evolution doesn’t have its flaws, erroneous assumptions and unexplained gaps. I am one of those with the middle position that Evolution did happen, but that forces beyond the physical had some intervention in it. After all, no Atheist or scientific materialist has ever been able to answer the question of how something could come from nothing, or why anything even exists at all, or how the first cell become self-replicating, etc. 

 

Also, for the Atheist to ask "If God created the world, then who created God?" is a circular argument that gets nowhere. Such questions cannot be resolved since the answers probably lie beyond the physical and beyond our comprehension. But they do not erase the evidence of design in creation, nor the fact that we have conscious awareness beyond the mind and brain.

 

Evolution has only been proven at the micro level, not the macro level. While small changes within a species have been demonstrated and observed, the theory that one species can transition to another has never been proven in any way.

 

The truth is, there are huge gaps and missing links in the current model of Evolution. No transitional species have been found that links humans to the prehistoric hominids or primates. And the transitions that allegedly took place, if it did, was way too quick to be natural.

 

Humans are also not equipped to survive in the wilderness of nature and cannot compete with the wild animals there in terms of physical strength and adaptability. Thus they could not have evolved naturally in the wild through Evolution alone. Our biological human physique is obvious evidence of this. Furthermore, no human fossils dating back beyond 200,000 years has ever been found. Moreover, the makeup of our genes contain many clues and bits of data that does not fit into the Evolutionary model. (see the presentation below by Lloyd Pye for details) And of course, science cannot explain how life began at all or how the first cell became self-replicating. Even Richard Dawkins, the most famous staunch advocate of Evolution, admits this. (see the end of the Ben Stein film below for Dawkins’ confession)

 

These unexplained mysteries and discrepancies have never been solved by the scientific establishment. Instead, they are just brushed under the carpet, denied and given copout explanations and leaps of faith arguments. The scientific establishment has too much invested in its current paradigm to change its mind or rethink its theories. They also ridicule and ostracize dissent so that scientists are required to tow the party line in order to keep their careers and be promoted. In other words, freethought or questioning is not allowed. In short, they’ve created a “forced consensus” that is run by pressure and punishment, rather than freethought.

 

To see an excellent documentary that explores the suppression of “intelligent design” in the scientific establishment and universities, see Ben Stein’s revealing film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” on YouTube here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj8xyMsbkO4

 

Now, I do not claim to have all the answers to such mysteries. But there are some researchers who have invested a lot of time in this subject that are worth listening to. One such example is Lloyd Pye, a tireless anthropology researcher who has pioneered what he calls an “Intervention Theory”. See this outstanding presentation by Pye:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNGngZsxAhw

 

For more info, see Lloyd Pye’s website and book Everything You Know Is Wrong.

http://www.lloydpye.com

 

Now, even if micro Evolution is true, it does not rule out the existence of God or a cosmic universal consciousness.  Greg Stone, author of Under the Tree, put it eloquently on my discussion list:

 

“Not only is there a residue of feeling, but there is a sound argument that Darwinian evolution is not big enough. It is not. Darwinian evolution deals with the specific nature of the evolution of biological forms on this planet. And it fails to account entirely even for that realm. It does not account for the overall evolution of complexity within the universe, which then leads to the "special case" of Darwinian evolution.  It does not account for the origin of life forms, and most importantly it in no way accounts for the existence of the spirit and the spirit's effect upon the evolution of forms. Thus, Darwinian Evolution is incomplete when it comes to explaining life. And those, like Dawkins, Blackmore, Pinker, etc. who try to make Darwinian Evolution do more than it can will be seen in the long run to have been quite foolish.”

 

Some researchers have argued that it is mathematically impossible for life to evolve by chance on its own because of the astronomical impossibility of the conditions for life being set up by chance.  Theist J.P. Moreland presented the arguments for this, using math and science, in his debate against Atheist Kai Neilsen, described in the book Does God Exist?: The Debate Between Theists & Atheists. In his debate with Atheist Kai Neilsen, Moreland explains with math and science why chance alone could not explain how the conditions for life evolved. 

 

One thing the Atheists can never explain is “Who set up the vastly improbable default conditions for life to evolve in the FIRST PLACE?  Where did the matter to create the universe and life come from? How did something come from nothing?”  It’s kind of like this: We know the mechanics behind how and why a pot boils, but that doesn’t tell us about the person who put the pot on the stove. 

 

Some Atheists also like to point out that the need for belief in God can also be explained by Evolution.  However, David Marshall, a Christian missionary and philosopher rebuts that point well when he stated in my discussion list:

 

“To make the jump from "evolution can explain belief in God" to "there is no God" without involved argument would be the generic fallacy, again.  To repeat my earlier example, even if you can explain the human ability to do math by evolution, that does not prove math is invalid.  In theory, it should be possible (given your presuppositions) to show how the human faculty for mathematics arose through natural processes.  That does not mean E=MC2 does not accurately describe real events in the real universe.  The fact that evolution may have created an awareness of dependency on one's mother on a child's part, does not mean real mothers do not exist and do not care for their children.  In the same way, even if you were able to describe the evolution of faith in God, it would still remain an entirely separate argument, whether God exists in fact or not.”

Previous Page                      Back to Table of Contents                        Next Page