The prevailing paradigm in science today is that of evolution. There are a lot of spin-off theories that have developed because of this. But if you study the subject with understanding, you find that the contradictions of evolution overshadow its science.
The religion of evolution
One of the first contradictions is the fact that evolution is not science. Though it is paraded as a scientific theory, there is nothing about it that is scientific. True science is something that is empirical and can be observed and repeated. Evolution has never been observed nor repeated in any way.
Some evangelists of evolution will refute the above statement. They do this by using their own definition of what evolution is. Their definition of evolution is “change over time”. This definition is ambiguous at best. Such a definition would call a rotting carcass of a whale on a beach as evolution. Over the course of several months there is definite change in the carcass. But is that change evolution?
Change – Greater Complexity
There must be a clearer definition of what evolution is. Darwin’s definition of “change over time” meant an increase in complexity. This was accomplished by changes observed in one generation being passed on to the next generation. So, it is not mere “change over time”, but change that brings about greater complexity.
With that definition we should be able to put to rest any argument in favor of Darwinian evolution. With the discovery of DNA and its role in living things, we see that information is a cornerstone of life systems.
At one point evolutionists thought this would be a great discovery to help prove evolution. For a while it was aided by the discovery of mutations which occurred in the genome. Mutations were “misprints” in the genome which changed the coded information in the DNA. This was hailed as proof of evolution.
That movement prevailed for a while until further discoveries about DNA were revealed. Mutations were found to be subtractions in the information pool of the DNA. Instead of adding information and increasing complexity, they were diminishing complexity. That should have settled the question of evolution. But, since it is not science, it is not subject to scientific scrutiny.
If not science, what is it.
If evolution is not science, then what is it. One might say it is a philosophy or a religion. Real science deals with things that are observable and repeatable. As we mentioned above, the change that has been observed so far in living things does not comport with evolution. In other words, it is not doing what evolution said it would.
Since evolution happened in the past and it cannot be repeated, it is not real science.
The fossil record
It was long promoted that the fossil record would prove evolution. Even Darwin thought this to be true. He even said that if transitional fossils could not be found, then evolution would be disproved. One hundred fifty years later and there are no confirmed transitional fossils of any kind.
The layers in this chart are not consistent anywhere on the earth. They may be interchanged or non existent depending on where you look. This was made up to satisfy the idea of hundreds of millions of years in the fossil record.
Still, evolution is not debunked. Why is this?
Is evolution logical?
There are many things about the theory of evolution which are not logical. But, let me point out one of the core principles of evolution which stands out.
One of the driving forces of evolution is known as “the survival of the fittest”. This is the driving force of the food chain, so to speak. This is how evolutionists justify the struggle between living things. Each is trying to secure its survival by doing away with competition for nutrients, or food in the environment.
Logic would say that by spawning another of its type, the food supply would be depleted more. The logical thing would be to not increase the population of the species or life form.
Step back to the first life form
Evolutionists cannot tell you how the first life form came about. They say that it did, simply because we are here. That is not an explanation. That is an ignorant statement. Stating the obvious does not explain its beginning.
If, somehow, chance brought about life against impossible odds, that would be miraculous. But, miracles are not allowed, so they say. But, such a robust life form, having overcome such impossible odds should have no problem continuing living. In other words, if life came about the way they say, it logically should not die.
Of course, we know that things die. It is observable and repeatable.
We also know that life only comes from life. That is a scientific fact.
What is evolution
Considering the contradictions of evolution we cannot consider it a science. It is not logical and it does not conform to the facts of science nor to its laws. So, what is evolution?
Is it a science? No.
Is evolution a philosophy? Maybe.
Evolution is a contradiction of itself
Evolution claims to be science. But we have noted several instances where it definitely is not science. Science is logical. Evolution is not logical. It claims that only the fittest survive. If that were so, it would feed off its own progeny. In doing so it would guarantee not continuance of the species.
Why do I say that? If a once in 10>1008 thing could happen what would it feed on? It would feed on the most convenient thing possible. That would be its offspring. It could not wait for another 10>1008 years for another “miracle” to happen. Therefore, it ends its own existence at the beginning.
Evolution is illogical. Evolution is religion.
If it is illogical, why does it persist?
There is only one logical answer. Some people do not wish to believe the truth. Yes, I used the word “believe”. Evolutionists contradict themselves too often to be called scientists. They are priests of secularism.
We have stated before that secularism is based in humanistic materialism. They believe that all there is is nature and the materials of nature. There is no spirit nor any deity. The reason they believe this is evident. To believe in a greater being means that we must be subject to his authority. Secular humanists do not wish to serve anyone but themselves.
Humanists will go to any extreme to rule out a Creator. They rail against those who believe in Divine Creation because they say that it is religion. Science is what they accept. Yet, what they call science cannot be logically or scientifically attested. They actually accept as facts things that are illogical and unprovable by scientific testing. Creationists are called religious when they themselves are practicing a belief system.
They accept certain things as science which have no factual undergirding. In many articles we have shown the impossibility of the increase in complexity of any species. They publish scientific paper filled with “perhaps”, “maybe”, “could”, etc. Learned publications should be grounded on provable and repeatable experimentation. It should not be grounded in “hope” or “future studies”. They should be established by facts and by facts that are repeatable.
To state that evolution is science is to state a contradiction. Evolution is a belief system developed by people who do not want to believe the truth.
Though, neither creation nor evolution can be proved scientifically, the facts fit well with the creation scenario. They do not fit the secular humanistic evolution scenario.
It is time for logical clear thinking people to stand for the truth. The truth is, there is a Creator. He has established the laws by which His creation works. We have been given the joy of finding out how this creation works. It is called the study of science. The greatest discoveries of science have been done by men who “think God’s thoughts after Him.” It is time for people who desire true knowledge to begin again to “think God’s thoughts after Him”.
If we do not begin to seek His knowledge we shall continue down a road of destruction.
The contradictions of evolution are grounded in the rebellion of those who hate their Creator. Do not be counted among those. If they do not repent, their destruction is certain.