What are the arguments against the Theory of Evolution?

Answer 1

Here are some great books about that. You can find tons of info in them, and I really do recommend reading them.

-Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton
-It Couldn't Just Happen, by Lawrence O. Richards
-What Darwin Didn't Know, by Geoffrey Simmons
-Darwins Black Box, by Michael Behe
-Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law, and education, by Phillip E. Johnson
-Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, by William Dembski
-The Lie: Evolution, by Ken Ham
-Refuting Evolution, by Jonathan Sarfati
-Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, by Gish
-Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!, again by Gish but it is the revised edition.
-The Revised and Expanded Answers Book, by Ken Ham
-That Their Words May be Used Against Them, by ???
-Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, by ???
-Refuting Compromise, by ??? (I think this one is more for Christians with religious arguments)

There are many more books on this subject, and many websites. The only problem with the internet is that a lot of the material is not scientific and has no evidence to back it up. Much of it is what you would call "Religious" (but that is not always bad. If you are religious, you want some religious reasons why it is not true). But many of these books are very good. I haven't read them all, but the best case in any I have found so far is "What Darwin Didn't Know." It doesn't really say much about evolution, and nothing about religion. It just talks about how incredibly complex the human body is. Pretty good stuff.


Edit:
I just thought I would respond a little to what the person above me wrote.... I just couldn't resist.

First off, the 2nd law of Thermodynamics can be overcome with an energy source, but that is not all that is needed. Without something to convert the energy, it is useless. Plants do the converting for us, or solar converters. But neither of these things existed in the beginning of life. Evolution would have no usable energy from the sun, so the 2nd law argument still holds. Not to meantion it would take a lot more energy than what the sun and other sources give.

Crystals are not evidence for evolution simply because of the fact that they are not life. Living things and crystals fall into two very different catigories. They simply are not comparable. Even after forming into paterns, they are still chemicals, not living. Even the simplist possible living thing is a million times more complex, and could not have formed by chemical reactions.

For the plane, what are the parts that are "supposed" to go together in nature? Amino acids perhaps? Well, working amino acids, or what form protiens, need DNA in order to be assembled. It just is not in their nature to go together. But amino acids and protiens are needed for ALL life, and again, they need DNA to form. The only problem is, that DNA is formed from working protiens within the cell. See the problem?

Even if the plane parts don't need to be a plane, they will never assemble into anything that works, much less something that is alive.

As to the argument of whether evolution is a theory or law, it does not matter. It is really irrelivant whether we call something a theory or a law, it still is what it is. So stop attacking and arguing over what it is called, it simply does not matter.

Bombadier bettle... Wow, I really shouldn't get started on this one, but I will. So yeah, the fact that it is more than just a simple explosion, and that it need SPECIFIC enzymes and such to cause the reaction, implies design more than just an explosion. It is the same as with fireflies, which have a similar process for lighting up their bodies. When a firefly lights up, several chemicals are mixed in a specialized chamber. The problem is that the chamber is not needed, and is therefore a disadvantage to the insect, without the explosion. But without the chamber, the insect would explode or be killed from the reaction. Again, like the amino acids and DNA, one can not happen without the other. See the problem?

Age limit: It doesn't matter. Period. Even if the universe is as old as evoltionists say, that still is NOT enough time for evolution to happen. If every possible time a mutation happened they were all beneficial, in the time the evolutionist gives and with the fastest possible rate of evolution, there would still be a very large gap of time between what is needed and what is there. And the 2nd law applies here as well. The universe can not stay as ordered as it is needed to for that long. There is a closed amount of energy in the universe, it simply can not remain without entropy for billions of years.

As to the fossils: Archaeopteryx was an ADMITTED hoax, and National Geographic, the magizine that published the story in the first place, published a small article about how locals had glued, yes, glued, parts of a bird and lizard together because it would sell better to tourists. It was not a link. The same thing has happened with other "missing links." And most were hoaxes, exagarated, or not even the species they were supposed to be. Read "The Fossils Still Say No!" for more on that one.

Fruit flies are still fruit flies, and most of the time they have disabilities like not being able to fly (you can buy those in the pet stores).

Obviously, natural selection happens. But it will not account for the vast amounts of life we see on earth. It can not work for many reasons, which I won't go into detail about here. If you really want to know, you can read the books, if not, it won't do any good to say them there. The books do a better job anyways. So I think I am done now. Oh, and anyone who wants to email me and talk more about this is free to do so. It's [e-mail]. Have a great day.

Oh, one more thing, in response to talkorigins.com, go to trueorigins.org.

Answer 2

If you are really interested in digging into this- check out www.drdino.com Lot of good information there. First off- the world cannot possibly be millions of years old. There are several age-limiting factors, including our sun, the moon's increasing distance to the earth, the lack of 'dirt' in the oceans, the ocean's are getting saltier- yet are only a bit above 3% salt, Saturn's rings would no longer be here, comets would no longer be around, etc.Tons of stuff there. Second- the idea of life evolving is a complete joke- anyone who can comprehend the statistics behind this would recognize its impossibility. It is absurd to believe this- which brings up a very key point: Evolution is NOT science in any way, shape, or form. It is a state-funded religiion; a system of beliefs about the origins of humanity that cannot be backed up by one piece of scientific evidence. (demonstrable, repeatable, etc) In fact, many key elements are easily disproven. For example, if the Big Bang happened, every galaxy, solar system, and planet would be spinning the same way, due to the conservation of angular momentum. They aren't. The Geologic column, which is key to the theory, is completely contradicted by polystrata fossils. There are no beneficial mutations. None. Nada. Nothing is continuing to evolve. There are no missing links. (real ones anyway- there have been plenty of fakes, including a 'prehistoric' man and his wife contructed from a pig's tooth!). The Second Law of Thermodynamics directly contradicts the theory of evolution. In short- people only believe this theory if they have been brainwashed, or they can't accept the alternative- that there is a Creator.

Sorry this isn't more thorough, I don't have much time at the moment. But I wanted to at least answer part of the question that was asked, as none of the previous posts seemed to want to answer it. *edit* while i was posting- part of this was finally answered. :)

Answer 3

1. It is a theory.
If it is true, it should now be a law. A law is something everything follows consistently.

2. No proofs.
When it comes to proving, would not we want explained and almost perfect proofs? The fact is, evolution fails at that.

3. Exaggeration.
Evolution (or its associates) does happen. Alas, supporters of evolution are being too imaginative (the term they use for creationists) and irrational. The chance for an organism to die due to harshness is always higher than the chances for it survive.
Note that I say "higher", not "high".
Evolution can happen but never easily. The foundation of the theory is too lame.

4.Script-Science clash.
Followers of the holy script are likely to be creationist meanwhile the others are likely to be evolutionists. The disagreement of the two sides apparently to be fired up when it comes to the origin of man; monkey or Adam and Eve? Low status or high/Divine status?
Here is the hardest part:
Most creationists tend to believe that evolutionists do not believe in God. This can be proved by the books published by creationists to refute evolution. Most of them will say "Evolution is false because it denies God".
On the other hand, most evolutionists claimed in their works that God is in their beliefs, too, but God created creatures through the process of evolution.
Oxymoron at its worst, yet?

The best way to bridge the two sides is sheer discussion.
When it comes down to discussion, that means tolerance and rationality are at hand.
Stop debating. It ain't very helpful.
Be on the wall. The best, be with the true ones.
Study first both sides then comment.
Never comment things you do not know.

Check out other great answers.
There are lots more to be written but I prefer to give others chances.
Sorry for any mistake.

*edit
For the theory-law part, listen to the guy who corrected me.
Thanks, pal.
Nonetheless, evolution is still wrong.

Answer 4

WOW....I could give you so much information, but lets just pick one thing that refutes it without question. Ever heard of the 2nd LAW of Thermodynamics? Here's the scientific jargon of it...

The entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.
(Entropy being the lowering of energy level)

The basic information of it is that things don't go from a lower level to a higher level. They go from higher levels of organization and energy down to free zero (some say chaos) Remember that this is a LAW and evolution is a THEORY.

A real world example is, say you put all the parts necessary to make an airplane out in a field. If you leave them there long enough, will they assemble themselves into a complete, fully functional plane? That's what evolution wants you to believe. They say, oh, it happened over billions of years.....ok, back to the airplane parts. Are they assembled yet? Nope, they turned into rust and disingrated long ago. Well, they say, energy was introduced. OK, let's say I walk through that field, pick up one of the parts and throw it at another one. Are we going to get an airplane? Nope.....

For some other cool facts....check out the bombardier beetle (a creature that defies evolution). It has two chemicals enclosed in different areas of his body that explode when combined. He sprays them in conjunction on predators. Good thing evolution got him right the very first try around,huh? Or he would have gone BOOM, and that would've been it.....Yeah, right!

Answer 5

You do not have arguments pro evolution, just hypotetic models. I do not say you could proove Inteligent Design. These are just two theories. Everyone's free to choose, better to believe in Evolution or ID.
So, you should have a faith stronger than any religious system talking about any cosmogony or creation (design) if you believe everything so complex came (evolved) from nothing.

And do not forget about the enthropy that acts against any evolution process in any system.

Answer 6

i'm a Christian yet i do no longer trust that the international became created in 6 x 24 hours. i'm also a scientist at heart and that i comprehend the info tells me that it wasn't created in 6 days. even besides the undeniable fact that evolution hasn't truly been proved, I do discover it a reputable rationalization of ways existence got here about. The DNA info would advise one creature has advanced from yet another yet there is not any longer something to really teach it surpassed off. In a way, those that say evolution truly surpassed off so God would not exist aren't any better than those that say God exists and he truly created it in 6 days. i hit upon it weird and wonderful that persons can refuse to position self assurance in God because there is not any info yet then shout that evolution is real with none info. I for one am going to save an open ideas. the idea of evolution sounds like an exceedingly credible rationalization, yet without info it may't be used as info of something. it really is in person-friendly words a remember of conception and faith. Edit: Martin, i'm getting the effect you're a passionate believer in evolution. strong success convincing each and absolutely everyone. i imagine there's a word that contains brick walls that's making an attempt to spring to ideas. am i able to easily upload one element. Fossil information do not teach evolution. we've gadgets of bones of various a lengthy time period which have certain features in undemanding that the evolution idea would look to extra healthful. besides the undeniable fact that, we received't teach it truly surpassed off. like you, i trust it surpassed off, yet we received't teach it.

Answer 7

I haven't seen any legitimate ones yet--that's why it's called a theory. Scientists use that word a little differently than we do. A scientific theory means that no valid evidence has ever been produced to contradict it. That's also why we refer to the Theory of Relativity.

Answer 8

First, you have to separate what real evolutionists and scientists believe from what people that have never studied it think they are supposed to believe -- because most will believe anything if it's called science. Many think Darwin said we descended from monkeys, so they claim to believe that. Read Steven Jay Gould, Behe (Darwin's black box), Genesis, and if you still have time, The Origin of the Species by Darwin. (Strangely enough, the one thing he doesn't answer is the "Origin".) Steven Hawking is another good source.

Answer 9

Starting with the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, the modern science of evolution has been a source of nearly constant controversy. In general, controversy has centered on the philosophical, cosmological, social, and religious implications of evolution, not on the science of evolution itself. The proposition that biological evolution occurs through one method or another has been almost completely uncontested within the scientific community since the early 20th century.[27]

As Darwin recognized early on, perhaps the most controversial aspect of evolutionary thought is its applicability to human beings. The idea that all diversity in life, including human beings, arose through natural processes without a need for supernatural intervention poses difficulties for the belief in purpose inherent in most religious faiths — and especially for the Abrahamic religions. Many religious people are able to reconcile the science of evolution with their faith, or see no real conflict [7]; Judaism is notable as one of those faith traditions whose adherents see no conflict between evolutionary theory and their religious beliefs.[28] [29] [30] The idea that faith and evolution are compatible has been called theistic evolution. Another group of religious people, generally referred to as creationists, consider evolutionary origin beliefs to be incompatible with their faith, their religious texts and their perception of design in nature, and so cannot accept what they call "unguided evolution".

One particularly contentious topic evoked by evolution is the biological status of humanity. Whereas the classical religious view can be broadly characterized as a belief in the great chain of being (in which people are "above" the animals but slightly "below" the angels), the science of evolution is clear both that humans are animals and that they share common ancestry with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Some people find the idea of common ancestry repellent, as, in their opinion, it "degrades" humankind. A related conflict arises when critics combine the religious view of people's superior status with the mistaken notion that evolution is necessarily "progressive". If human beings are superior to animals yet evolved from them, these critics claim, "inferior" animals would not still exist. Because animals that are (in their view) "inferior" creatures do demonstrably exist, evolutionary critics sometimes incorrectly infer that evolution is false.

In some countries — notably the United States — these and other tensions between religion and science have fueled what has been called the creation-evolution controversy, which, among other things, has generated struggles over the teaching curriculum. While many other fields of science, such as cosmology and earth science, also conflict with a literal interpretation of religious texts, evolutionary studies have borne the brunt of these debates.

Evolution has been used to support philosophical and ethical choices which most modern scientists argue are neither mandated by evolution nor supported by science. For example, the eugenic ideas of Francis Galton were developed into arguments that the human gene pool should be improved by selective breeding policies, including incentives for reproduction for those of "good stock" and disincentives, such as compulsory sterilization, "euthanasia", and later, prenatal testing, birth control, and genetic engineering, for those of "bad". Another example of an extension of evolutionary theory that is widely regarded as unwarranted is "Social Darwinism"; a term given to the 19th century Whig Malthusian theory developed by Herbert Spencer into ideas about "survival of the fittest" in commerce and human societies as a whole, and by others into claims that social inequality, racism, and imperialism were justified.[31]

Answer 10

Creationism - That things are so complex they could not have evolved by chance. This is the religious POV especialy since they don't want humans being happenstance.