There are many arguments against atheistic evolution. Here are our favorites.

A visitor wrote: “Thank you for being a small voice clarifying the real issues behind the evolutionary debate. The greatest problem I see is the confusion between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Anything beyond micro-evolution is merely a belief system.”

Search this site

Problems for atheistic evolutionists

Good arguments against evolution

Evolutionists who reject God and miracles have some huge problems to explain.

Problem No. 1
How did the universe come about?

There is of course no scientific law or demonstable process that would let something evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear.

Atheistic evolutionists often try to duck this problem by saying that evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, only how life progressed after it appeared. But assuming the existence of an intricately working universe with some sort of life-forms already in it is not a minor assumption, and puts more faith in an unknown, counter-intuitive process than Christians put in God.

The problem is that if you can't get something from nothing, it's pointless thinking you can accurately explain the next step. Juggle the figures any way you like, but without a Creator you are not going to get anything, let alone everything.

For more information on the origin of the universe, see Models of the origin of the universe, by Dr. John Rankin.

Problem No. 2
How could living creatures come from non-life?

Again, there is no scientific law or demonstrable process that can account for non-living objects coming to life. The non-living soil in your garden didn't turn into living trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other living trees and flowers. Life invariably comes from something that is already alive.

Atheistic evolutionists have long believed that at some time in the distant past, life arose from non-living substances. British biologist T.H. Huxley in 1869 and physicist John Tyndall in 1874 were early promoters of the idea that life could be generated from inorganic chemicals.

But biology has found no law to support this idea, and much against it. The invariable observation is that only living things give rise to other living things. Life could not begin if God and miracles took no part!

Dr. Kenneth Poppe says in his book Exposing Evolution's Weakest Link,
“There are no provable mechanisms for how molecules could increase in complexity without cells to produce and utilize them. For example, you cannot assume proteins before you have the DNA that codes for them.”

Imagine all life on earth disappeared. There are no trees, plants or animals. All we have is rocks, dust, and lifeless matter. So how does the earth get populated with living things? That's the atheist evolutionist's unanswerable dilemma, and shows the massive faith they have to hold in preposterous answers.

For more information on abiogenesis (the theory that contends organisms originated from non-living material), see the CreationWiki article, Abiogenesis.

See also Origin of Life questions and answers, by Answers in Genesis.

Problem No. 3
How could new genetic information arise?

There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it.

To show that all life evolved from a single cell, which itself came from some type of chemical soup, there would have had to be massive genetic information gains.

But evolutionists have failed to show how this gain of new information occurred. Where did the information come from for the first bristles, stomachs, spines, intestines, complex blood circulation systems, intricate mouthpieces to strain special foods out of the water, and so on, when these were not present in the ancestral species?

The theory of evolution teaches that simple life-forms evolved into more complex life-forms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection.

But mutations and natural selection do not show gain in information, just rearrangement or loss of what is already there — therefore there may be beneficial mutations without an increase in genetic information.

Mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents. (See our article on TNR, the Totally Naked Rooster.) And natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures. Natural selection may explain why light-colored moths decrease and dark moths proliferate, but it cannot show that moths could ever turn into effective, totally different, non-moth creatures. Moths do not have the genetic information to evolve into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them.

For more information on macroevolution, see the CreationWiki articles Macroevolution and Macroevolution has never been observed.

See also Speciation Questions and Answers by Answers in Genesis.

Problem No. 4
Where is the proof that apes turned into humans?

Despite the evidence being pathetic, even if you claim the title of World's Biggest Optimist, evolutionists still tell the story that once upon a time humans evolved from ape-like creatures.

Many years ago this argument seemed credible to a lot of people because there was so little hominid fossil evidence that it was easy to imagine evolutionary links everywhere.

But things have changed. Thousands of fossils and fossil fragments of apes and humans have now been found — and they don't show a steady progression from apes to humans at all. Fossils have been found in the wrong time-frames, put into the wrong categories before all the evidence was in, and what was once thought to be the ape-human family tree now actually has no trunk — just unconnected branches.

Because evolutionists can't change their theory, they are stuck with the evidence looking more confusing for them with each new hominid/homin/hominine fossil discovery. Instead of clarifying the alleged link between apes and humans, new fossil discoveries are making it harder to show which type of ape evolved into a human.

For more information on ape fossils making monkeys out of humans, see the article Humans are not descended from apes.

Alternative view

We believe that the evidence is stronger for those who believe the Bible's account of creation — that in the beginning God created the world and all the major types of creatures to reproduce “after their kind”.

Related topics:

• Lucy is not the missing link
• Human babies born with tails are not evidence for evolution.
• Pests and germs do not evolve resistance to poisons and antibiotics.
• Neanderthals were humans — not ape-men or missing links!
• Human embryos do not retrace the stages of evolution.
• Why dogs and finch beaks don't prove evolution.
• Could God have created using evolution?
• Is evolution a fact, like gravity?
• Why does evolution breed tyrants?

| Main page || Creation Tips || Teen Topics || Crystal Clear Creation || DinosaurCam || Games || News archives || News |

Contact us.
Website: www.creationtips.com
Copyright © Creation Tips and its
licensors. All rights reserved.