The theory of evolution seems to be present everywhere we go. It is introduced as a theory to our children in public schools, and taught as fact in colleges and universities. It is promoted as true science in museums and on nature programs. It is even snuck into the books and cartoons that are enjoyed by our young children. Evolution has been around so long, and has been packaged and promoted so well, that it is accepted as a fact by many people. However, the theory of evolution is still a theory - and a very bad one at that.
In order for something to be accepted as a scientific fact, it must be observable and reproducible. While it is true that cases of "micro-evolution" have been observed and reproduced (moths changing the color of their wings, new breeds of dogs produced through selective breeding, etc.), the evolution that supposedly resulted in the variety of species of life on this planet (called "macro-evolution") has not been observed or reproduced. For instance, no one has witnessed a plant becoming an animal, or a lizard producing a bird. Therefore, evolution must still be considered a theory. It is not a proven fact. However, even as a theory, evolution has some serious scientific flaws. Consider the following points.
1. It Violates the Law of Biogenesis. This scientific law states that life comes only from pre-existing life. The theory of evolution argues against this established law, and states that life sprang forth from non-living matter. Science has yet to witness the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter.
2. It Violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law states that as energy is transformed from one form into another, less of the total energy is available to be utilized in further transformations. In other words, left alone, all natural processes lead to a less ordered, less organized state. We observe this law in everyday life. For instance, left to itself, does your house get dirty or clean? The theory of evolution agues against this law, stating that life has naturally progressed from a disorganized state (one celled organisms) to a highly organized state (plants and animals).
3. It is a Mathematical Impossibility. What are the mathematical probabilities of evolution having taken place? What are the odds? Do they argue in favor of or against evolution? The probability of the chance development of a very simple system composed of only 200 integrated parts is 1 out of 10375. Mathematicians generally consider any event with a probability of less than one chance in 1050 as having a zero possibility, i.e., it is impossible.
A system composed of only 200 parts is an impossibility, yet that system falls far short of any living system that we know of. The most basic type of protein molecule that could be classified as living is composed of at least 400 linked amino acids, each made up of a specific arrangement of four to five chemical elements, each with a unique combination of protons, neutrons, and electrons. The probability of forming the proteins and DNA for the smallest self-replicating entity is 1 in 10167,626. Mathematically speaking, evolution is an impossibility.
4. It is Not Supported by the Fossil Record. The fossils preserved in the earth's crust provide a kind of "written" record of events that have occurred throughout the history of this planet. If evolution happened, then we should find evidence of this process in the fossil record. Even Darwin anticipated this. In his book, Origin of the Species, he wrote, "The number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great." However, after over 200 years of searching, the fossil record has yet to provide any evidence of these transitional or missing links between the species. The fossil record has not been friendly to Darwin or to Evolutionists.
Real science is about establishing facts, not promoting agendas. Facts are stubborn things. The theory of evolution does not pass the test of true science. Why, then, are public schools, universities, nature programs on television, etc., so intent on teaching this theory? Any theory that argues in favor of an entirely naturalistic cause for life argues against the existence of God. This is what lies at the heart of the debate over evolution. It is not about science. If it were about science, it would have been abandoned by the scientific community long ago. The promotion of the theory of evolution is about proving that God does not exist.
The Bible says that God made the world and everything in it (Acts 17:24), and that man has been fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of God for the purpose of attaining fellowship with God (Ps. 139:14, Gen. 1:26, Acts 17:27). The Bible proclaims that it is the fool who has said in his heart that there is no God (Ps. 14:1). What else would you call a person who places his hope of avoiding eternal judgment at the hands of the living God in a theory as flimsy as evolution?