What Evolution Isn't

Evolutionists are often given a false sense of security and rightness when they encounter Creationists who do not seem to understand evolutionary theory.  This is both tragic and unnecessary.  So to help both Bible-believing Creationists and secular, heathen Darwinists alike, I present a summary of the completely unfounded and baseless theory of evolution.

First of all, a quick definition: Evolution is defined as the descent of all life on earth from a common ancestor through a series of random changes over time.  That is not a "Creationist" definition, but the definition used by secular, evolutionary biologists around the world.

The first key thing to remember when discussing evolution is that it is completely random, with no design and no purpose.  What does this mean?  It means that, according to the theory, everything from the eye to the brain to the cell to the mucosal membranes are all the product of random variations over time.  A lot of folks get hung up on this point because it is so counter-intuitive.  The notion that a series of random events can result in such complexities is completely bewildering to most people.  I believe this is why so many try to force some sort of design or purpose onto the theory of evolution.  They are trying to make sense of it.  "How can anyone believe this is random?" many people ask.  But believe it they do.

The second key is a notion called "natural selection."  This is what I call the "adopted child of evolution" because it has a dirty little secret.  But before I tell you the secret, let me explain what natural selection is.  It is quite simply the phenomenon that organisms which are better at reproduction will pass their genes onto their offspring, while those organisms which are worse at reproduction will not.  That's pretty simple, right?  That's all natural selection is.  Now for the dirty little secret: There is nothing about it that is specifically tied to evolution.  But evolutionists love to talk about it as if it is synonymous with evolution.  Natural selection can only operate on something that confers an immediate reproductive benefit.  Period.  I have had people say to me that natural selection is also about survival and not just reproduction.  But look closely again at my definition.  An organism which is dead is not going to be very good at reproduction, is it?  Thus, survival is a subset of reproductive "fitness," and only insomuch as the organism can survive long enough to reproduce.

Putting these two keys together, we end up with the basic concept behind the false theory of evolution: random genetic variations eventually lead to changes that confer a reproductive benefit, and those genetic variations get passed onto the next generation.  Expanding on it a little more, some random variations that do not confer a reproductive benefit just so happen to "stick" and eventually lead to other processes, organs, and appendages which may or may not confer a reproductive benefit.  This is the foolishness evolutionists believe.

That's it.  That's all there is to it.  Some call it elegantly simple, but I call it arrogantly foolish.  It is an interesting theory, but it is continually being squeezed out of the realm of "scientific fact" by the utter lack of evidence for it, as well as evidence that vigorously contradicts it.  There are many out there who believe in evolution who do not even understand it.  Let us as Creationists help them to understand it, and then understand why it is a lie and an unscientific hoax.  Then we can lead them to the truth: that Jesus Christ the the Creator of all life on earth.

Top 4 Evidences That Evolution Never Actually Happened

Evolution (the notion that all life on earth has a common ancestor) has been said to be a theory-driven model rather than a data-driven one.  This is factually and indisputably the case.  I'm going to present what I believe are the top 4 evidences against Darwinian evolution.  There are two terms I use below, microevolution and macroevolution.  Both of these terms were created by and are used by secular, evolutionary scientists.  They are not my terms.  Microevolution refers to the minor variation that occurs within a genus, such as a change in color, beak size, hair length, or gestation period.  Macroevolution refers to one genus (like a feline) changing into another genus (like a vulpes) over time.

Recently I began saying that it is much easier to prove a theory than to disprove it.  Computer science nerds will recognize this as a distant corollary to the "does P = NP" problem.  It is easier to validate a statement than to validate the negation of that statement, which is essentially what it means to disprove it.  Thus, evolution should at least in theory be difficult to disprove regardless, but easy to prove if it is true.

Evidence does not equate to proof, however, the strength and quantity of evidence can drive up or down the probability that a theory is true.  I hope you'll see from reading the below 4 pieces of evidence that the probability of evolution being true is closer to zero than you might think.

4. Microevolution has never been observed leading to macroevolution.  In other words, the rise of a new genus has never been observed as a result of cumulative changes in an existing genus.  The typical excuse given by evolutionists is that it takes so long for a new genus to evolve that we could never observe it.  This, of course, contradicts the evidence in favor of the theory.  Theory-driven, not data-driven.

3. The age of the earth does not allow enough time for the evolutionary timeline claimed by secular authorities.  Polystrate trees, polonium halos, dendrochronology, radiometric dating, and the composition of the earth's crust all suggest a relatively young (< 10,000 years) earth.  Even if evolution somehow occurred rapidly during that time, it would have had to have abruptly slowed or stopped in order to become completely unobservable today.  Even supposing that the earth were as old as evolutionists claim, it would still not provide enough time

2. Many plants and animals, including flowering plants, appear abruptly in the fossil record with nothing that could even be considered a transitional form, not even by the most creative evolutionist.  The "Cambrian Explosion" is another example.  There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest flowering plants evolved.  One response I have heard is that we are "lucky" to have any fossils at all.  But this response flies in the face of the evidence because the fossils which are considered among some of the oldest (by the evolutionary timeline), such as those of fish, are extremely plentiful and high quality.  It therefore makes no sense that the "oldest' fossils survived while the much "younger" ones were destroyed.  Theory-driven, not data-driven.

1. Darwin himself stated that the utter lack of transitional forms in the fossil record is the single greatest blow to his theory.  Over 100 years later, with all the advances in paleontology, you would think we would be up to our ears in transitional forms.  But all we have are the fossils of existing species with a few deformities.  In fact, fish fossils supposedly from hundreds of millions of years ago are exactly identical to the fish that exist today.  Not almost identical; exactly identical.  You would think that after hundreds of millions of years, there would be some change right?  Wrong.  Evolutionists claim that those fish did in fact evolve, but the original species still exist.  That assumption certainly fits the theory, but not the evidence.  The transitional forms of these imaginary "evolved" fish are still missing.  Theory-driven, not data-driven.

Do not be fooled by assumptions that are masquerading as evidence and proof.  A con artist's success depends upon his victim making many interrelated assumptions.  Very few people will be fooled by a single assumption presented as fact.  But most people will be fooled when they believe "facts" which are based on other "facts" which are actually based on someone else's assumption.  Do not assume anything and don't rely on blind faith in "science" of any kind without fully understanding exactly what is going on behind the curtain.  There is a reason that after almost 15 years of debating evolutionists, I am still a staunch Creationist.  And my reason is most definitely not faith alone.