This evening I went to a talk given by Paul Garner of Biblical Creation Ministries on the subject of evolution vs creation, from a scientific viewpoint.Ask the average layman in the street the above question, and the answer is almost always a certain ‘yes’. Most people don’t have the foggiest idea about it, yet alone have any comprehension it might be wrong. Many people think this is a religion vs science issue, or faith vs reason, when it is nothing of the sort. Subjecting the theory of evolution to scientific reason can show it to be deficient. The talk this evening covered a few areas of science where evolution is inadequate.
Straightforward arguments such as gaps in the fossil record, where, if evolution were true, you wouldn’t expect to find these gaps, raise doubts. After all if all life is a result of gradual changes, you would expect to find the links between one species to another.
The concept of evolution gradual improvements by small mutations appears to be flawed, as mutations observed today in the copying of genetic code result in loss of operation. This can be seen most markedly in genetic diseases such as spina bifida.
Additionally, many complex creatures we see around us defy the idea of gradual improvement. If they only had particular functions in full operation, they would not be able to function as a whole.
On the flip side of mutations is natural selection, but this doesn’t demonstrate evolution in any way. For the fittest (or most well suited) to survive, it must already exist. The only thing that will happen is that those not so well suited will eventually dwindle in numbers and possibly die out. In other words, everything that has survived, existed in the first place, and due to variations dying out, the gene pool is reduced.
Finally, there is the question of how did life start in the beginning, which has not been fully answered in evolution. Scientific experiments have only managed to produced amino acids – the building blocks of life – not life itself, and even then only with specific conditions. Looking at these specific conditions, they are only assumed to be representative of the earth before life.
These arguments are amongst many and I realise I could go on for ages, but these arguments are significant and show significant problems with evolutionary theory. I also realise I am a qualified mathematician and not a qualified biologist/geologist, whereas Paul Garner is. If you get an opportunaity to listen to Paul Garner, or to read his works, he is more likely to be explain it better than me.
Given the evidence which life leaves behind, it is hard to conclude it evolved. It is possible to argue that the evidence is more in line with the theory that everything was created and designed by God, than to argue it evolved through a sequence of chance events. Even some ardent evolutionsists refer to life as being well designed, or having the appearance of design.
Is it not therefore possible that there is a designer and that life was designed?
What is certain, is that we cannot believe the theory of evolution to be certainly true.