Evolution (shorthand here for "the neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution by random mutation and natural selection") is a discredited, failed theory. If Darwin were alive today, he would be the first to admit that what we now know about just the cell, for example, completely demolishes his original theory.
Evolution does not explain how new functions, new kinds of tissue, new organs, or new abilities (such as a spider making a web for the first time, and on and on, ad nauseum) develop. Random mutation simply does not work, and front-line biologists know very well that it doesn't.
There are no "transitional species," of which Darwin said there should be an abundance, and evolution has no viable explanation as to why not.
If higher life forms kept emerging as a result of survival (of the fittest), then why do the forms from which they supposedly developed persist?
Evolution has no answer to the problem of mathematical probability: When you consider the millions of species, plant and animal, and how they flourish in dependence on each other, with flora replenishing the oxygen depleted by the respiration of fauna, with bees providing a pollination mechanism essential to many plants, etc., etc., etc., the probability that this all developed by chance, as a result of random mutation and "natural selection" (there's a rabbit out of the hat for you), is 1/N, where N is a super-astronomical number which is greater than the number of all the atoms in the universe!
Evolution doesn't even come close to having satisfactory answers to such questions as: How did gender develop? How did the wondrously complex and diverse forms of eyes develop? How did consciousness develop? How did what we nonchalantly call "instincts" (many of which are enormously complex, such as the honey bees dance to communicate where to go for nectar) develop? How did ageing and death come into the picture (particularly as longevity/immortality would seem to be crucial to "survival")? And how did man develop, with powers of reasoning and other abilities that are so far superior to those of any other creature as to make laughable the idea that this yawning gap could be accounted for by anything short of an infinite number of so-called missing links?
Nor can evolution account for the staggering improbability that we just lucked out to be on a planet with all of the myriads of properties necessary to sustain life, the lack of any one of which would have made life on earth untenable, that earth just happens to be in an ideal orbit around an ideal star, or that all of the physical constants (gravitational forces, nuclear forces, magnetic forces, speed of light, etc.) just happen to be precisely those required to sustain physical reality.
Now can evolution explain how it is supposedly able to fly in the face of the second law of thermodynamics, the scientific law that demands that the flow in any closed system is from order to chaos, with increasing entropy, not chaos to order.
Evolutionists cannot cite for us one single instance in what we blithely call "nature" where chaos (randomness) produced order (and not one clear case of where a random mutation was beneficial to the organism). (By the way, that moth business whereby English moths supposedly changed color to make them less visible to their natural predators (which would simply be a case of change within a species anyway) has been completely debunked, just as has the philosophically preposterous theory of recapitulation, still taught in schools despite the fact that no serious biologist has accepted this fanciful idea for over half a century.)
Evolution, while being the product of (albeit misguided, imo) rational thought, teaches that that very rationality on which it is purportedly based is itself merely a fortuitous transformation (over millions of years) of molecules in some primordial goop. In other words, give some goop enough time and eventually it will develop the ability to account for itself! Quite a feat.
Evolutionists are, in a way, romantics, though, holding that "time heals all wounds." In other words, no matter what the problem or objection or difficulty, just mix enough time into the equation and all is resolved.
But that's not only hopelessly "romantic," it's also hopelessly fanciful. Not only does it defy the second law of thermodynamics, but all of human experience too. Time is not a force, not a mechanism, not an engine, not a vehicle. Time doesn't do anything, except move inexorably on.
So, if time is t and chaos (disorder) is k, then, no matter the value of t, kt = k, and never never k + alpha.
So what is the engine that drives evolution? There simply is no such engine. Worms are happy being worms; they do not long to be salamanders. And molecules constituting primordial goop are "happy" with their unsynthesized, disorganized states. There simply is no force available in "nature" for sustaining any kind of tendency toward a higher level of organization.
You may say, "Well, okay, but it happened anyway, as all the evidence points, so we don't need any force or engine."
Sorry, but all the evidence does not so point, no matter how many times this incantation is made. Evolutionists are supposed to be scientists who "follow wherever the evidence leads." But is this what they really do? I don't think so. Evolutionists are human, subject to human emotion, subject to temptation. And I believe that the overwhelming temptation is to start from where they want the evidence to lead, and then work backwards, with eyes only for "evidence" thought convenient to their preconceived theory. I believe that the overwhelming temptation is for them to turn a blind eye to the overwhelming evidence that is inimical, not to say lethal, to their theory. And if they don't succumb to these temptations, then they run enormous risks of censure from their colleagues in the academic community who are adamantly indisposed to brook any heretical diversion from the accepted orthodoxy.
Which brings me (happily) to my final point: Evolution, as espoused today, the de rigour philosophy of academia, the media, the educational bureaucracy, has about it many aspects that cannot be called other than religious. Evolution is a religious dogma, capable of generating religious fervor in its adherents that is qualitatively no different that any other fundamentalist fervor.
Evolution does not explain how new functions, new kinds of tissue, new organs, or new abilities (such as a spider making a web for the first time, and on and on, ad nauseum) develop. Random mutation simply does not work, and front-line biologists know very well that it doesn't.
There are no "transitional species," of which Darwin said there should be an abundance, and evolution has no viable explanation as to why not.
If higher life forms kept emerging as a result of survival (of the fittest), then why do the forms from which they supposedly developed persist?
Evolution has no answer to the problem of mathematical probability: When you consider the millions of species, plant and animal, and how they flourish in dependence on each other, with flora replenishing the oxygen depleted by the respiration of fauna, with bees providing a pollination mechanism essential to many plants, etc., etc., etc., the probability that this all developed by chance, as a result of random mutation and "natural selection" (there's a rabbit out of the hat for you), is 1/N, where N is a super-astronomical number which is greater than the number of all the atoms in the universe!
Evolution doesn't even come close to having satisfactory answers to such questions as: How did gender develop? How did the wondrously complex and diverse forms of eyes develop? How did consciousness develop? How did what we nonchalantly call "instincts" (many of which are enormously complex, such as the honey bees dance to communicate where to go for nectar) develop? How did ageing and death come into the picture (particularly as longevity/immortality would seem to be crucial to "survival")? And how did man develop, with powers of reasoning and other abilities that are so far superior to those of any other creature as to make laughable the idea that this yawning gap could be accounted for by anything short of an infinite number of so-called missing links?
Nor can evolution account for the staggering improbability that we just lucked out to be on a planet with all of the myriads of properties necessary to sustain life, the lack of any one of which would have made life on earth untenable, that earth just happens to be in an ideal orbit around an ideal star, or that all of the physical constants (gravitational forces, nuclear forces, magnetic forces, speed of light, etc.) just happen to be precisely those required to sustain physical reality.
Now can evolution explain how it is supposedly able to fly in the face of the second law of thermodynamics, the scientific law that demands that the flow in any closed system is from order to chaos, with increasing entropy, not chaos to order.
Evolutionists cannot cite for us one single instance in what we blithely call "nature" where chaos (randomness) produced order (and not one clear case of where a random mutation was beneficial to the organism). (By the way, that moth business whereby English moths supposedly changed color to make them less visible to their natural predators (which would simply be a case of change within a species anyway) has been completely debunked, just as has the philosophically preposterous theory of recapitulation, still taught in schools despite the fact that no serious biologist has accepted this fanciful idea for over half a century.)
Evolution, while being the product of (albeit misguided, imo) rational thought, teaches that that very rationality on which it is purportedly based is itself merely a fortuitous transformation (over millions of years) of molecules in some primordial goop. In other words, give some goop enough time and eventually it will develop the ability to account for itself! Quite a feat.
Evolutionists are, in a way, romantics, though, holding that "time heals all wounds." In other words, no matter what the problem or objection or difficulty, just mix enough time into the equation and all is resolved.
But that's not only hopelessly "romantic," it's also hopelessly fanciful. Not only does it defy the second law of thermodynamics, but all of human experience too. Time is not a force, not a mechanism, not an engine, not a vehicle. Time doesn't do anything, except move inexorably on.
So, if time is t and chaos (disorder) is k, then, no matter the value of t, kt = k, and never never k + alpha.
So what is the engine that drives evolution? There simply is no such engine. Worms are happy being worms; they do not long to be salamanders. And molecules constituting primordial goop are "happy" with their unsynthesized, disorganized states. There simply is no force available in "nature" for sustaining any kind of tendency toward a higher level of organization.
You may say, "Well, okay, but it happened anyway, as all the evidence points, so we don't need any force or engine."
Sorry, but all the evidence does not so point, no matter how many times this incantation is made. Evolutionists are supposed to be scientists who "follow wherever the evidence leads." But is this what they really do? I don't think so. Evolutionists are human, subject to human emotion, subject to temptation. And I believe that the overwhelming temptation is to start from where they want the evidence to lead, and then work backwards, with eyes only for "evidence" thought convenient to their preconceived theory. I believe that the overwhelming temptation is for them to turn a blind eye to the overwhelming evidence that is inimical, not to say lethal, to their theory. And if they don't succumb to these temptations, then they run enormous risks of censure from their colleagues in the academic community who are adamantly indisposed to brook any heretical diversion from the accepted orthodoxy.
Which brings me (happily) to my final point: Evolution, as espoused today, the de rigour philosophy of academia, the media, the educational bureaucracy, has about it many aspects that cannot be called other than religious. Evolution is a religious dogma, capable of generating religious fervor in its adherents that is qualitatively no different that any other fundamentalist fervor.
