Why I Reject Darwinism As Science

        The concept of evolution revolves around changes in physical structures, which take place over given periods of time. Some may either perceive this to have cosmological implications or strictly biological ones. According to the Theory of Evolution, a source of matter brought about all existing life forms that we see in our world today. It is maintained that all this took place stochastically through the processes of genetic mutation and natural selection. Microevolution is the small, rapid changes within a particular animal species. Macroevolution is the very gradual, major evolutionary transition which takes place among the different species of animals in becoming different types of organisms.

        The first major promoter of evolution was Charles Darwin. His ideas are now taught as a proven fact by most in the secular world. Darwin fundamentally changed the the landscape of not only science, but also philosophy, ethics, and religion. However, his ideas stand in stark contrast to the creation narrative of Genesis, which has God creating the universe and giving meaning to life. Over the course of his studies, Darwin gradually shifted away from traditional theistic perceptions of God toward agnosticism. He taught that all forms of life have a common ancestor. Further, he knew that people would make objections to his novel scientific proposals:

        "...why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not nature all in confusion, instead of species being, as we see them, well defined?" (The Origin of Species, chapter six)

        On the contrary, we have never observed life forms reproduce different life forms. That is the kind of evolution for which we still have no reliable evidence. In other words, all life forms produce after their own kind. Thus, the life reproduction pattern laid out by the Book of Genesis is more consistent with science than what Charles Darwin theorized. In addition, transitions between basic features in organisms are rendered improbable by the fact that other vital functions would simultaneously be disabled. How did essential organs such as the heart, lungs, and stomach form to begin with? Biochemists D.E. Green and R.W. Goldberger said the following in their book Molecular Insights into the Living Process, p. 407:

        "The macromolecule to cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture."

        Consider also this excerpt from Associate Professor of Biochemistry Douglas L. Theobald:

        "Universal common ancestry (UCA) is a central pillar of modern evolutionary theory. As first suggested by Darwin, the theory of UCA posits that all extant terrestrial organisms share a common genetic heritage, each being the genealogical descendant of a single species from the distant past. The classic evidence for UCA, although massive, is largely restricted to ‘local’ common ancestry—for example, of specific phyla rather than the entirety of life—and has yet to fully integrate the recent advances from modern phylogenetics and probability theory. Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing, 7,8,9,10, and this has led to critical commentary emphasizing the intrinsic technical difficulties in empirically evaluating a theory of such broad scope 1,5,8,9,11,12,13,14,15."

        It would be a stretch to say that the above cited scholar is a creationist. He is not by any means sympathetic to supernatural worldviews, but admits that the idea of universal common ancestry has difficulties. Following is an excerpt from a paper written in 2011 by Denis Noble, a secular biologist, who criticizes aspects of Darwinism:

        "Must higher level biological processes always be derivable from lower level data and mechanisms, as assumed by the idea that an organism is completely defined by its genome? Or are higher level properties necessarily also causes of lower level behaviour, involving actions and interactions both ways? This article uses modelling of the heart, and its experimental basis, to show that downward causation is necessary and that this form of causation can be represented as the influences of initial and boundary conditions on the solutions of the differential equations used to represent the lower level processes. These insights are then generalized. A priori, there is no privileged level of causation. The relations between this form of ‘biological relativity’ and forms of relativity in physics are discussed. Biological relativity can be seen as an extension of the relativity principle by avoiding the assumption that there is a privileged scale at which biological functions are determined."

          Consider this excerpt from an article titled The Comet Comith: Evolving Developmental Systems, by Johannes Jaeger, Manfred Laubichler, and Werner Callebaut:

          "One of the main reasons for Duboule’s pessimism about the return of the EvoDevo comet is the staggering complexity and diversity of cellular and developmental regulatory processes. The configuration space for realistic models of such systems is vast, high dimensional, and potentially infinitely complex."

          This underscores the vast complexity and diverse regulatory processes in cellular development, which strongly suggests intelligent design. Such intricate systems, with their high-dimensional configuration space, are unlikely to be the result of random evolution alone. Instead, they point to a purposeful and intelligent creator behind the sophisticated mechanisms governing life's development. Another excerpt from that same piece says profound genetic similarities exist which do not prove common ancestry:

          "Because of this, similarities in gene expression patterns or morphological structure often do not necessarily imply common ancestry, since they may as well reflect the frequent reuse of the same regulatory or morphogenetic modules." (Ibid.)

        Genetic mutations are rare, and, whenever they do occur, usually cause harm to living organisms. Changes can be made, but new genetic information cannot be added to an organism's genetic code (which is what is required for the sort of evolution touted by Darwin to work). How did mammals reproduce before they somehow evolved into a male and female of the species? Did some mysterious creature that had both pairs of genitalia have intercourse with itself? Did DNA (which produces proteins) come first or did proteins (which are required in order for life to exist) come first? How could the precise, natural process of blood clotting arise from blind, unguided chance? Why is it that some organisms have supposedly evolved to a certain state of complexity over millions of years just to cease in the process since (e.g. we have found snakes and spiders that are dated back millions of years that are the same today as they were back then)? How does one account for the fact that humans have characteristics that provide no advantages for survival such as music and religion? Why do we find other animals species cute? These are only a few issues that render naturalistic evolution inadequate as a scientific postulate. Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek raise other points that are worthy of consideration:

        "Darwinism asserts that only materials exist, but materials don’t have morality. How much does hate weigh? Is there an atom for love? What’s the chemical composition of the murder molecule? These questions are meaningless because physical particles are not responsible for morality. If materials are solely responsible for morality, then Hitler had no real moral responsibility for what he did—he just had bad molecules. This is nonsense, and everyone knows it. Human thoughts and transcendent moral laws are not material things any more than the laws of logic and mathematics are material things. They are immaterial entities that cannot be weighed or physically measured. As a result, they can’t be explained in material terms by natural selection or any other atheistic means." (I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, p. 187)

        A commonly accepted postulate by defenders of Darwinism in regards to how the universe began is the Big Bang Theory. It states that the universe began as a very hot, small, and dense ball of cosmological matter, called a singularity, which expanded and transformed into what we call the universe. The universe is continuing to cool down as it continues to spread out further. This in and of itself is a problem for atheistic worldviews because of its theistic underpinnings. It points to the fact that our universe had a beginning. Further, it is contrary to reason to suggest that something can originate from nothing. We know that from nothing comes nothing. Living matter cannot originate from non-living matter and chemicals. Nothing cannot be the cause of a cosmic expansion of matter. What caused the universe to go into motion? Something cannot put itself into motion. Why did this happen? 

        Another view on the origin of the universe as we know it, yet is less commonly held to, is called the Oscillating Universe Theory. It states that the universe expands from a singularity, collapses back again, and repeats the same cycle for all eternity. This idea is highly improbable because the universe is not closed and consequently continues to expand outward. In fact, the accelerating force has continued to increase. We have no evidence for a decreasing speed. The concept of an eternal universe is also irrational at face value. It would mean that we could never have reached a point in time when this paper was typed up. Rather than engaging in foolish speculation, it is more reasonable to believe that God created all things ex nihilo. It is a fact that atheistic evolution cannot account for the origin of life.

        The overall design and complexity of our universe cannot simply be accounted for in an atheistic evolutionary worldview. Naturalists have ascribed the role of creation and the reason for our finely-tuned universe to mere accidents. Thus, proponents of Darwinism have literally attributed to blind chance the power of producing intelligent, functional, meaningful systems. If "blind" is not a proper word to use in describing "chance" in creating our universe, then what other word would better fit the bill? It is not as though "chance" has any mind of its own to make decisions for itself. This is nothing short of creating myths. The origin and history of life on earth cannot be satisfactorily explained by natural selection, mutations, and genetic exchange alone. It would be more proper to treat the Theory of Evolution as a testable hypothesis than a worldview.

        Science does not say anything by itself. It is the scientists who interpret available data in accordance with their underlying philosophical presuppositions about life that speak. Our scientific reasoning will inevitably be colored by our preconceptions about reality. Scientific data is subject to interpretation. Everybody brings a set of foundational assumptions to the table in the process of scientific investigation. There are basic facts of science that everybody agrees on such as the existence of gravity and the movement of tectonic plates. However, a person either studies the natural world with the belief in a Creator or no Creator at all.