Three Questions to Ask those that think evolutionism is based on science
Probably the most common theme from evolutionists on the origins issue is that evolutionism is based on science and Creation is only religion. The facts from science tell quite a different story. One of the best ways to discuss the Creation/evolution controversy is by asking questions. Following are three of the questions that you should ask any evolutionist or anyone else who believes that evolution is a scientific theory and not a religion. These three questions are not simply unanswered by evolutionists from the facts of science they are unanswerable by evolutionism based on true science. Evolutionists when confronted with these questions will often trot out some “just-so” story with lots of could be’s, might be’s or it is believed to be’s, but no documented scientific facts to support their story of time and chance making all things happen. What these three questions have in common is that all of them fit perfectly within a created world.
Question 1) Where did the information in DNA come from originally?
Even the simplest bacteria contains hundreds of thousands of precisely organized bits of information in its DNA, but the science of information theory tells us that information only comes from information, it cannot organize itself. So what was the source of the original information required for life to exist? Just as a book cannot write itself simply because there is paper and ink present, so the language of life, DNA, cannot just form out of a collection of chemicals. What information represents is the output of a mind, whether it is God’s mind or a human mind. Just as the existence of a building represents the information output of an architect’s mind, so DNA is an example of the information output of God’s mind that He used in creating life.
Question 2) How can mutations that are only capable of rearranging or losing information, cause brand new information to appear?
Mutations are called “the engine of evolution” by evolutionists, but it is now known that mutations cannot cause totally new information to appear. Yet that is exactly what would have had to have happened if evolution were true. It would require the appearance of massive amounts of totally new information by random chance to turn a one-celled animal into a multi-celled animal, but creating new information is precisely what mutations cannot do. Mutations can bring about new traits, wingless beetles and tailless cats in animals and sickle-cell anemia and muscular dystrophy in people are just some examples, but these new traits are the result of the loss of information in the creatures DNA. Mutations are a manifestation of the curse that God put on the world because of the sin of Adam and Eve. God created a perfect world so the only place for it to go from there is downhill, which in fact is what is happening to the whole earth. There are over 4000 genetic mutations in the human race and the number of mutations is constantly increasing. Mutations are simply an example of this downhill slide in the living world.
Question 3) Why is there no evidence of 2, 4, 8 celled animals etc., ever having lived?
There is abundant evidence for one-celled animals in both the living world and the fossil record, but there is not one shred of evidence of any animal above the one-celled level until it reaches many thousands of cells in multi-cellular creatures. Yet if evolution were true there should be innumerable examples of 2, 4, 8 celled animals in both the living world and fossil record. In fact if evolution were true it should be impossible to classify animals by families at all. We shouldn’t find a world full of cats and dogs and cows and horses. What we should see around us is a world filled with dats and cogs and hows and corses, a blending of all of the different kinds of animals. The existence of distinct kinds of creatures as well as the lack of intermediate animals is clear evidence of a created world. This problem for evolutionists became so clear that several of the best known evolutionists of the 20th century had to invent what they called punctuated equilibrium. Their speculation was that for long periods in the past animals remained essentially unchanged, maintaining equilibrium, and then suddenly something happened to cause a major change very rapidly, a punctuation of that equilibrium. Those who support this idea maintain that change happened so fast that there was no fossil evidence of the change from one kind to another. So for people who promote punctuated equilibrium, the lack of fossil evidence is their proof for punctuated equilibrium.
The preceding three questions are only a few of the many unanswerable questions for evolutionism. Evolutionists will make up explanations that will satisfy them that they answered the evidence against evolutionism, even though their “answers” are not based on science. Evolutionists are quick to make up stories about such things as homology, intermediate species, embryonic recapitulation and other such invented stories that supposedly are evidence of evolution. What is lacking in such stories is solid scientific evidence that supports these stories.
One of the most commonly stated evolutionist claims is that evolution is a scientific theory, but it’s not. A scientific theory is a well-tested hypothesis. But both Creation and evolution are claims about things that happened in the past and historic events cannot be scientifically proven. What can be done is to look for evidence that supports or refutes either story. The best scientific evidence available clearly supports the Creation story for those who want to see it.
Project CREATION exists so that we can fulfill God’s command given to us in 1 Peter 3:15 "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear".