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 demonstrable 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 — which is impossible for them to answer satisfactorily — 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.
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
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
But biology has found no support for this, 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
“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
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 supposedly not present in the
The theory of evolution teaches that complex life-forms
evolved from simple life-forms. 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 turn into something that is not a moth, no matter
how much time you give them. Nor could they evolve from something
that was totally different from a moth.
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
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 or ape-like creature evolved into a human.
For more information on ape fossils making monkeys out of
humans, see the article Humans are not
descended from apes.
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”.