- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
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
- 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?