Evidence Against Evolution

Lately my atheist friends have decided to use their freedom of speech to voice their opinions against Christianity and pretty much any other kind of religion and agnostic belief. One of their attacking points is evolution and Darwinism. As we all know if Darwinism is true then it leaves God out the picture. So what I am going to do is just look at this in a broader spectrum of Darwinism or intelligent designer. I am going to discuss 4 scientific reasons why Darwinism does not work.

1. Lack of evidence to explain the origins of cellular life. Many of us may remember the experiment we learned about in high school biology which discussed an experiment done that proved that lightning could of caused for amino acids to be created. This thus explained that evolution could of happened from life coming from nothing. This experiment called the Miller experiment has 2 major problems. First one being that earth atmosphere that Miller used is no longer considered the type of atmosphere that early early had. By the mid-1970s, Belgian biochemist Marcel Florkin was declaring that the concept behind Miller's theory of the early atmosphere `has been abandoned.' Two of the leading origin-of-life researchers, Klaus Dose and Sidney Fox, confirmed that Miller had used the wrong gas mixture. And Science magazine said in 1995 that experts now dismiss Miller's experiment because `the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation.' Furthermore scientists have conducted experiments with what is believed to be the early earth atmosphere and have not been able to create any amino acids. The second problem is that even if you had amino acids there is no answer to how amino acids and proteins could arrange to become a living cell. Biologists can't even create a living cell while having all the correct molecules. Cells can't evolve from nothing.

2 Lack of fossil evidence to support evolution. Darwinism believed we all came from one living cell and through evolution we started diversifying and becoming different species. His tree of life best shows his theory. If all species came about through small variations over millions of years then you would suspect for the fossil record to support this. But it does not. In all actuality it didn't during Darwin's time but he suspected that fossil discoveries 100 to 150 years after him would come to light to support him. But that has not happened. What scientist have found, is a sudden explosion of complex life. This known as the Cambrian Explosion. This sudden surface of complex life with no fossil evidence before this leaves Darwin's Tree of Life not valid. Evolution is slow progression of changes not sudden which has been called the "Biological Big Bang".

3. Java Man, the man we see in the Museum of Natural History. We all know about Java man and most museums show a half man half monkey human who is suppose to be where we came from in transition from coming from apes. But there have been some arguments about the validity of Java Man fossils or what they really represent. What is not so well known is that Java man consists of nothing more than a skullcap, a femur (thigh bone) and three teeth. Or that the discover Dubois' shoddy excavation would have disqualified the fossil from consideration by today's standards. Or that the femur apparently didn't really belong with the skullcap. Or that the skull cap, according to prominent Cambridge University anatomist Sir Arthur Keith, was distinctly human and reflected a brain capacity well within the range of humans living today. Or that a 342-page scientific report from a fact-finding expedition of nineteen evolutionists demolished Dubois' claims and concluded that Java man played no part in human evolution. Again there is no solid proof that we evolved from apes as Darwin claims.

4. Irreducibly Complex. Darwin states in his book Origins of Species, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down." Irreducibly complex is an argument that is made stating that there are organic systems that can't be explained through successive slight modifications. One of these examples is bacterial flagellum. The argument is that if one of the parts was removed the flagellum doesn't work and because you need all the parts to have it work then slight modifications couldn't have happened.

As I said before that I just wanted to let it be known that there are theories against evolution that point towards an intelligent designer. These theories do not allow evolution to be a fact but it does allow it to be a theory by all means. There are also many other theories that point towards an intelligent designer when it comes to cosmetology and physics that I wont touch upon.