What Makes Me Question Evolution?

Editors Note: Today, February 12 is the birthday of Charles Darwin. Thus it is very appropriate that the Question Evolution Day falls on February 12th.  

It’s that time of year again. It’s the time of year the evolutionists go into celebration mode as they honor the birth of their prophet Charles Darwin.  International Darwin Day is February twelfth.  It is therefore very fitting that the same day be used to question evolution which the priests and temples of Darwinism do their best not to permit. However, thanks to the freedom that the internet provides, dissent can still reach past the ivory towers of academia to the common people.  And it is the common people, the ones the ivory tower looks down their noses at, who most strongly reject evolution.

As an outsider to the ivory tower, but someone who has read extensively in the scientific literature, I kind of have a unique perspective on the whole controversy surrounding evolution.  Even before I was a Christian, I thought evolution was ridiculous.  It just went against everything I could see happening. As a child, I was an animal enthusiast, particularly with fish. I bred guppies, swordtails, and other fish and they always gave birth to animals that were just like them, albeit with varying color strains.  As a child, with a roughly hazy idea of what evolution was, this to me was good evidence you did not get new animal types from existing ones.

As I got older and learned more about science, I learned that evolutionists postulated evolution took place by these things called mutations, regulated by a process called natural selection. Natural selection made sense. After all,  I had watched enough nature documentaries to know sick and injured animals were easy prey to predators.  I was unaware that natural selection had been redefined from its common meaning “survival of the fittest” to mean differential reproduction.  However, I knew enough to recognize that mutations broke DNA and many caused diseases. Appealing to that as the mechanism of change made no sense to me.

After I got saved and started digging even deeper into science, I quickly realized what a fairytale the mainstream science community was pushing. DNA probably was my biggest objection at that time and remains high on my list. I was, and still am, a massive genetics nerd. I love building Punnett squares and family trees to trace the origin of traits. The more I studied genetics, the more I realized that such a complicated interconnected network of coded information could not have evolved.  Mutations break things, they do not produce new information.

The deeper I delved into the science, the more I realized had been carefully hidden from the mainstream public. The evolutionists controlled most of the universities, including the Christian ones, almost all of the media, even the conservative outlets, as well as most forms of entertainment.  They could hide just about anything they wanted under the rug. However, I discovered that evolutionists themselves knew that mutations were almost exclusively bad for an animal. I discovered they made a habit of censoring those within the academic community who dared question their dogma or even accidentally imply design in any form. I learned that evolutionists could not even agree on what mechanism evolution used, whether it was slow and gradual, or fast with large breaks between events. It was far from the settled science I had been told it was.

As I matured in Christ, I also began to understand the theological implications of deep time.  I began to understand that if the earth was millions of years old, then God could not be good and Christ could not be the last Adam, nor could He save us from our sins. The theological implications of the evolutionary deep time were such that I could not accept it. Further, there was good scientific evidence that the rock layers that supposedly needed deep time to form, were formed much more rapidly, as a result of the flood. The Grand Canyon and the geological aftermath of Mount St. Helens stood out to me.

However, my primary scientific reason for rejecting evolution is now speciation and adaptation. These have been my primary research focus over the last few years and the deeper I get into them, the more they seem to stand against evolution.  The fact that discrete units which we call species even exist in nature stands in opposition to the continuum evolution expects. After all, most evolutionists, at least those of the gradualist variety, expect that evolution proceeds in a stepwise fashion, which leads to a traceable continuum.  We do not observe this continuum. We observe discrete units, species, which do not grade into one another as the evolutionists would expect. Yet they are still well adapted to their environments.  This failed implication of the evolutionary dogma stares them in the face daily, yet they still refuse to acknowledge it.

Evolution is a failed dogma. It may have appeared to work before we knew anything about genetics, or the inside of the cell, but, with our massive advances in scientific knowledge since Darwin, we really can’t continue to accept such an outdated hypothesis.

 

Do you know what’s going to happen when you die? Are you completely sure? If you aren’t, please read this or listen to this. You can know where you will spend eternity. If you have questions, please feel free to contact us, we’d love to talk to you.

 

 

1 Comment

  1. Reblogged this on ApoloJedi and commented:
    Because God’s revelation in the Bible is incongruent with modern the academic paradigm of evolution, Christians should reject it. But since it is also a scientific dead-end, even naturalists should reject it.

    “Mutations break things, they do not produce new information.”

    “As I matured in Christ, I also began to understand the theological implications of deep time. I began to understand that if the earth was millions of years old, then God could not be good and Christ could not be the last Adam, nor could He save us from our sins. The theological implications of the evolutionary deep time were such that I could not accept it. Further, there was good scientific evidence that the rock layers that supposedly needed deep time to form, were formed much more rapidly, as a result of the flood. The Grand Canyon and the geological aftermath of Mount St. Helens stood out to me.”

    Happy Question Evolution Day!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s