How can anyone with a brain deny evolution?

Question

I mean seriously, how much proven scientific fact does it take?

Answer 1

In our everyday experience, just about everything seems to have a beginning. In fact, the laws of science show that even things which look the same through our lifetime, like the sun and other stars, are running down. The sun is using up its fuel at millions of tons each second. Since, therefore, it cannot last forever, it had to have a beginning. The same can be shown to be true for the entire universe.

So when Christians claim that the God of the Bible created the entire universe, some will ask what seems a logical question, namely ‘Where did God come from?’

The Bible makes it clear in many places that God is outside of time. He is eternal, with no beginning or end — \ He is infinite! He also knows all things, being infinitely intelligent.1

Is this logical? Can modern science allow for such a notion? And how could you recognize the evidence for an intelligent Creator?

The existence of God is taken for granted in the Bible. There is nowhere any argument to prove it. He who disbelieves this truth is spoken of as one devoid of understanding (Psalm 14:1).

The arguments generally adduced by theologians in proof of God's existence are:

The a priori argument, which is the testimony afforded by reason.

The a posteriori argument, by which we proceed logically from the facts of experience to causes. These arguments are:

The cosmological, by which it is proved that there must be a First Cause of all things, for every effect must have a cause.

The teleological, or the argument from design. We see everywhere the operations of an intelligent Cause in nature.

The moral argument, called also the anthropological argument, based on the moral consciousness and the history of mankind, which exhibits a moral order and purpose which can only be explained on the supposition of the existence of God. Conscience and human history testify that "verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth."

Matthew G. Easton

How to recognize intelligence

Scientists get excited about finding stone tools in a cave because these speak of intelligence — \ a tool maker. They could not have designed themselves. Neither would anyone believe that the carved Presidents’ heads on Mt. Rushmore were the product of millions of years of chance erosion. We can recognize design — \ the evidence of the outworkings of intelligence — \ in the man-made objects all around us.

Similarly, in William Paley’s famous argument, a watch implies a watchmaker.2 Today, however, a large proportion of people, including many leading scientists, believe that all plants and animals, including the incredibly complex brains of the people who make watches, motor cars, etc., were not designed by an intelligent God but rather came from an unintelligent evolutionary process. But is this a defensible position?

Design in living things

Molecular biologist Dr. Michael Denton, writing as an agnostic, concluded:

‘Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced [twentieth century technology appears] clumsy. . . . It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.’3

The world-renowned crusader for Darwinism and atheism, Prof. Richard Dawkins, states:

‘We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully “designed” to have come into existence by chance.’4

Thus, even the most ardent atheist concedes that design is all around us. To a Christian, the design we see all around us is totally consistent with the Bible’s explanation that God created all.

However, evolutionists like Dawkins reject the idea of a Designer. He comments (emphasis added):


‘All appearance to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with future purpose in his mind’s eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. . . . It has no mind . . . . It does not plan for the future . . . it is the blind watchmaker.’5

Selection and design

Life is built on information, contained in that molecule of heredity, DNA. Dawkins believes that natural selection6 and mutations (blind, purposeless copying mistakes in this DNA) together provide the mechanism for producing the vast amounts of information responsible for the design in living things.7

Natural selection is a logical process that can be observed. However, selection can only operate on the information already contained in genes — \ it does not produce new information.8 Actually, this is consistent with the Bible’s account of origins; God created distinct kinds of animals and plants, each to reproduce after its own kind.


One can observe great variation in a kind,and see the results of natural selection. For instance, dingoes, wolves and coyotes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information in the genes of the wolf/dog kind.

But no new information was produced — \ these varieties have resulted from rearrangement, and sorting out, of the information in the original dog kind. One kind has never been observed to change into a totally different kind with new information that previously did not exist!

Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists agree with this, but they believe that mutations somehow provide the new information for natural selection to act upon.

Can mutations produce new information?

Actually, it is now clear that the answer is no! Dr. Lee Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who taught information and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, makes this abundantly clear in his recent book:

‘In this chapter I’ll bring several examples of evolution, [i.e., instances alleged to be examples of evolution] particularly mutations, and show that information is not increased . . . But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information.’9

‘All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.’10

‘The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain how the information of life has been built up by evolution. The essential biological difference between a human and a bacterium is in the information they contain. All other biological differences follow from that. The human genome has much more information than does the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can’t make money by losing it a little at a time.’11

Evolutionary scientists have no way around the conclusions that many scientists, including Dr. Spetner, have come to. Mutations do not work as a mechanism to fuel the evolutionary process.

[For further information, see: Can genetic mutations produce positive changes in living creatures? Answer...]
More problems!


Scientists have found that within the cell, there are thousands of what can be called ‘biochemical machines’. All of their parts have to be in place simultaneously or the cell can’t function. Things which were thought to be simple mechanisms, such as being able to sense light and turn it into electrical impulses, are in fact highly complicated.

Since life is built on these ‘machines’, the idea that natural processes could have made a living system is untenable. Biochemist Dr. Michael Behe uses the term ‘irreducible complexity’ in describing such biochemical ‘machines’.

‘. . . systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no reason to suppose that we should escape them.’12

Richard Dawkins recognizes this problem of needing ‘machinery’ to start with when he states:


‘The theory of the blind watchmaker is extremely powerful given that we are allowed to assume replication and hence cumulative selection. But if replication needs complex machinery, since the only way we know for complex machinery ultimately to come into existence is cumulative selection, we have a problem.’13

A problem indeed! The more we look into the workings of life, the more complicated it gets, and the more we see that life could not arise by itself. Not only is a source of information needed, but the complex ‘machines’ of the chemistry of life need to be in existence right from the start!

A greater problem still!


Some still try to insist that the machinery of the first cell could have arisen by pure chance. For instance, they say, by randomly drawing alphabet letters in sequence from a hat, sometimes you will get a simple word like ‘BAT’.14 So given long time periods, why couldn’t even more complex information arise by chance?

However, what would the word ‘BAT’ mean to a German or Chinese speaker? The point is that an order of letters is meaningless unless there is a language convention and a translation system in place which makes it meaningful!

In a cell, there is such a system (other molecules) that makes the order on the DNA meaningful. DNA without the language/translation system is meaningless, and these systems without the DNA wouldn’t work either.

The other complication is that the translation machinery which reads the order of the ‘letters’ in the DNA is itself specified by the DNA! This is another one of those ‘machines’ that needs to be fully-formed or life won’t work.

Can information arise from non-information?

Dr. Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, makes it clear that one of the things we know absolutely for sure from science, is that information cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always takes (greater) information to produce information, and ultimately information is the result of intelligence:

‘A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) . . . It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.’15

‘There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.’16

What is the source of the information?


We can therefore deduce that the huge amount of information in living things must originally have come from an intelligence, which had to have been far superior to ours, as scientists are revealing every day. But then, some will say that such a source would have to be caused by something with even greater information/intelligence.

However, if they reason like this, one could ask where this greater information/intelligence came from? And then where did that one come from … one could extrapolate to infinity, for ever, unless …

Unless there was a source of infinite intelligence, beyond our finite understanding. But isn’t this what the Bible indicates when we read, ‘In the beginning God …’? The God of the Bible is an infinite being not bound by limitations of time, space, knowledge, or anything else.


So which is the logically defensible position? — \ that matter eternally existed (or came into existence by itself for no reason), and then by itself arranged itself into information systems against everything observed in real science? Or that a being with infinite intelligence,17 created information systems for life to exist, agreeing with real science?


The answer seems obvious, so why don’t all intelligent scientists accept this? Michael Behe answers:

‘Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don’t want there to be anything beyond nature. They don’t want a supernatural being to affect nature, no matter how brief or constructive the interaction may have been. In other words … they bring an a priori philosophical commitment to their science that restricts what kinds of explanations they will accept about the physical world. Sometimes this leads to rather odd behavior.’18

The crux of the matter is this: If one accepts there is a God who created us, then that God also owns us. He thus has a right to set the rules by which we must live. In the Bible, He has revealed to us that we are in rebellion against our Creator. Because of this rebellion called sin, our physical bodies are sentenced to death — \ but we will live on, either with God, or without Him in a place of judgment.

But the good news is that our Creator provided, through the cross of Jesus Christ, a means of deliverance for our sin of rebellion, so that those who come to Him in faith, in repentance for their sin, can receive the forgiveness of a Holy God and spend forever with their Lord.

[Watch The HOPE on-line (streaming video)]


So who created God?

By definition, an infinite, eternal being has always existed — \ no one created God. He is the self-existing one — \ the great ‘I am’ of the Bible.19 He is outside of time — \ in fact, He created time.

You might say, ‘But that means I have to accept this by faith, as I can’t understand it.’

We read in the book of Hebrews, ‘But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him’ (Hebrews 11:6).

But this is not blind faith, as some think. In fact, the evolutionists who deny God have a blind faith — \ they have to believe something that is against real science — \ namely, that information can arise from disorder by chance.

Can you believe in the existence of something that you cannot see? Have you ever seen your own brain? We all believe in many things that we have never seen. Have you ever seen the wind? Have you seen history? We see the effects of the wind, but the wind is invisible. We have records of history, but it is by faith we believe that certain historical events happened. Television waves are invisible, but an antenna and a receiver can detect their presence.

Do you know that you have a receiver? Prior to becoming a child of God, your 'receiver' (your spirit) is dead because of sin (see Ephesians 2:1). You need to be plugged into the life of God, and then you will come alive and be aware of the invisible spiritual realm.

Learn more about God and his plan for your life

Adapted from author Ray Comfort



See these information sources for evidence of God and the accuracy of His Word...


The Christian faith is not a blind faith — \ it is a logically defensible faith. This is why the Bible makes it clear that anyone who does not believe in God is without excuse:

‘For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse’ (Romans 1:20).

Answer 2

I'm going to assume you meant creationist evolution, the general subject being that there was a primoridal ooze, through which some power cause a spontaneous generation of bacteria, from which came everything else.

If you merely meant Natural Selection, ignore everything else I have written.

as for Creationist Evolution, there isn't any "proven" scientific fact.

FACT #1. There cannot be life without life. Louis Pasteur proved this with his Florence Flask. He setup nutrient rich beef broths in germ and spore free flasks and permitted them a constant flow of air through a filtration system and nothing grew. Thats right, nothing. The theory of spontaneous generation has been continuously DISproved, not PROVEN. That is why it is still a THEORY, not a FACT

FACT #2 Charles Darwin is NOT a evolutionist. The great man, the one who is credited with the greatist atheistic movement ever, wasn't an evolutionist. In fact, he is buried in Westminster Abbey in London (p.s. thats a church...he's buried there because he was a Christian) Darwin postulated about Natural Selection, about the adaptation of species to suit their environments. He at no point supported the creation of new species.

A more important question, is why does anybody with a brain support evolution.

Answer 3

there are two different kinds of evolution. micro evolution, and macro evolution. micro is change in kinds, (such as dog to wolf) macro is change of kinds (such as dog to banana) macro is impossible. so when they say that a moth changing color is proof of evolution, no! that is proof of adaptation.
picture this: a car factory has been manufacturing cars for decades. they have tried really hard and have fixed every problem with the cars that was being produced. the final product is a really good car, not an airplane.
likewise, a moth changing color could be a better moth, but it is not a bird.
and the reason many people don't believe in evolution is because of the stupidity of it. how can such a fully functional orderly world have exploded from chance?
and evolutionests say that life came from non-life, which has already been proved impossible. Furthermore, evolutionists say that the world exploded from nothing. (big bang).
"For a long time, there was nothing...and then BOOM! there was an explosion, and everything started expanding from the size of a period into what it is today! Then the right chemicals came together and became a cell. The cell reproduced asexually and then at one point in time genders formed. By chance, there were two cells of the opposite gender met in the same time period and reproduced. Slowly, we got bigger and better."
Really. Are we expected to believe that?

ps the conservation of angular momentum does not fit with retrograde rotation, which goes against the big bang. forget venus crashing with an astroid as support for that. what about all the galexies rotating in the wrong direction? Did two galexies collide? heh...yeah right.

Answer 4

The second and far more controversial of Darwin's two basic concepts that outline his theory of evolution is referred to as speciation as opposed to the first known as anagenisis. This concept suggests the statistically based eventuality of random genetic changes in an isolated population allows it to adapt to its local conditions. Over many generations these changes add up in a divergent way because of the lack of influence from the parent species to the point that an irreversible distinction occurs that prevents the new species from interbreeding with the parent species. This phenomenom is called the "principle of divergence" by Darwin. Since the time of the publication of The Origin of Species this part of Darwin's theory has not had any directly observed evidence to support it. It has also been the target for opponents ot the theory because of the lack of evidence. Most monotheists have been pretty smug about their own species being somehow the chosen and most important species because of their simple and effective argument against evolution theory not having any evidence to support this concept of one species eventually splitting into new species. Your typical Christian has an ego that prevents him from considering the idea that thousands of generations ago his grandparents were probably chimpanzees. Well guess what, there is now an observed and documented record of a speciation event that took place in an extended experiment with fruit flies.performed by William R. Rice and George W. Salt. The undefended half of evolutionary theory now has valid supporting evidence. To finally answer the question at hand - Anyone with the use of a healthy fully functional and educated adult human brain does not have an argument against the theory of evolution. The frustration and contention begins with ego when religious beliefs stand in the way and then overall ignorance for the remainder.

Answer 5

We don`t deny evolution. We all evolve.

But we don`t become a different species.. Alligators are alligators, Chickens are chickens, they may be bigger, or smaller, or redder or greener, but they are still the same animal. Gorilla is still gorilla.. If they evolved (as you see it) they would no longer exist..

And scientific fact????? What facts? There is No more PROOF of evolution (as you see it) than for believing in the creator.. Please do give us the facts..

It is the ART of Science.

I mean a little over a hundred years ago they were leeching and bloodletting.. And let`s not forget the world is flat.. and etc and etc..

That was the scientific proof then. Science evolves just like everything but, it is still science.. It changes everyday...
So put your proof that no one else has, forward and teach us oh mighty one...

Some peoples kids!!!!

Answer 6

The fact is there is no proven scientific fact to support evolution!
Only theories!
I challenge you to give me one proven scientific fact that evolution is how we got came into existence!
Do you believe in God the creator? Even your parents had to come together to create you! Two buzzards didn't just bump butts together & you fell out!
Common sense shows there had to be a creator!
Evolution is not common sense! Not at all.

Answer 7

If you mean micro-evolution within a species, then I would have to agree with you that this is a fact. If you mean that an amoeba like creature became a fish like creature that became a frog like creature that became every single complex life form on the face of the earth from a bumblebee to a humming bird to an elephant to a human being, then I would be very interested in seeing this proof.

All evolutionists have is an untenable theory based upon the unprovable equation that "time + chance = macro-evolution". Talk about a joke! Where's the evidence that can be demonstrated in a laboratory? Where are the transitional life forms? Here's a little copy and paste for you about the so called transitional forms that scientists have used in the past to try and "prove" human evolution.

Human Evolution: The Legacy of the Fossil Evidence
Human evolution has many issues, including the realities of genetics, biochemistry, design theory, irreducible complexity, DNA structure, and information systems. However, the reality of the human fossil record alone is enough to reject the theory of human evolution all together. Here are just a few of the major problems with the alleged fossil record of the past century:

Ramapithecus was widely recognized as a direct ancestor of humans. It is now established that he was merely an extinct type of orangutan.

Piltdown man was hyped as the missing link in publications for over 40 years. He was a fraud based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw.

Nebraska man was a fraud based on a single tooth of a rare type of pig.

Java man was based on sketchy evidence of a femur, skull cap and three teeth found within a wide area over a one year period. It turns out the bones were found in an area of human remains, and now the femur is considered human and the skull cap from a large ape.

Neandertal man was traditionally depicted as a stooped ape-man. It is now accepted that the alleged posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

Human Evolution: The Current Tree
Human evolution has its currently fashionable specimens that lead from small ape-like creatures to Homo sapiens. These are examples of the most recent alleged links:

Australopithecus afarensis, or "Lucy," has been considered a missing link for years. However, studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have shown that she was merely a pygmy chimpanzee that walked a bit more upright than some other apes. She was not on her way to becoming human.

Homo erectus has been found throughout the world. He is smaller than the average human of today, with a proportionately smaller head and brain cavity. However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that he was just like current Homo sapiens. Remains are found throughout the world in the same proximity to remains of ordinary humans, suggesting coexistence. Australopithecus africanus and Peking man were presented as ape-men missing links for years, but are now both considered Homo erectus.
Homo habilis is now generally considered to be comprised of pieces of various other types of creatures, such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus, and is not generally viewed as a valid classification.

Human Evolution: The Most Recent Find

In July 2002, anthropologists announced the discovery of a skull in Chad with "an unusual mixture of primitive and humanlike features." The find was dubbed "Toumai" (the name give to children in Chad born close to the dry season) and was immediately hailed as "the earliest member of the human family found so far." By October 2002, a number of scientists went on record to criticize the premature claim -- declaring that the discovery is merely the fossil of an ape.

Human Evolution: The Theory Has No Support in the Fossil Record

Human evolution is a theory in denial. With all of this fossil evidence (or lack thereof) it becomes increasingly clear to an earnest seeker that human evolution did not happen at all.

Answer 8

anyone can its a matter of faith i think of it this way, if god is eternal he wouldnt use the same measurments of time that we do our billion years could be a day to him so in the bible when it says that it took 7 days maybe it did and maybe he set it up for us to question it is hard for people to beleive what they cant see so they have to justify it with something they can see or touch but 2000 years ago proof was given and his apostles still denied even when they saw what he did and if we did evolve from monkeys how come monkeys are evolving into us? maybe circumstances have to be just right for evolution to take a leap forward maybe there is no missing link but have faith that all things in due time are revealed be paticent who knows
examples of science's short comings world is flat, sun revolves around the earth it isnt so much its not what was proven wrong its what works for people at the time if it works for current society let it be

Answer 9

A lot more than you have given. I keep asking what "proof" there is for evolution, but I never get any answers. I just get called names like "extremist" and "fundamentalist Christian." (I never even meantioned my religion). But to answer the first question, there are many brilliant people who deny evolution. You just don't hear about them because the people who control the media don't want you to. So I'm giving you a list of books of people with brains who deny evolution, and give lots of reasons (scientific, and probably some religious. I haven't read all of these yet, sorry) for it.


-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)
-Godless, by Ann Coulter

Honestly, after doing some open minded research, I don't see how anyone can believe in evolution. It does not make logical or scientific sense. Even without dragging religion into it, there is very little evidence if any at all. Read some or all of these books, and then accuse people who disagree with evolution of not having brains. Course, if you are like all of the evolutionists I have talked to, you won't even read a few books with different views than yours. (and yes, I have read books that support evolution, including Darwin's stuff, which I haven't finished but am working on it right now). All I think is that those who believe in evolution should do the same they keep telling me to do, and that is look into the other side. If evolution is so right, then there is nothing to fear and lots to gain from learning why others don't believe. It allows you to answer their questions if in fact there are answers. So give it a shot, and then ask the question again if you still believe it.

Edit:
Oh, I almost forgot. If anyone would like to email me and provide me with this proof that I keep hearing about, I would be glad to hear from you. If you want to discuss, not argue endlessly about evolution, feel free to email me as well. My email is [e-mail]

Answer 10

There is a type of moth in England that displayed true evidence of evolution back in the early 1900's when it changed from a bright white colour to grey so it could blend in better on trees in the city due to the pollution created during the industrial revolution. So, no I don't think you can deny it, but the word of the Bible is pretty much ingrained in many disillusioned individuals.

Answer 11

How can anyone with a brain believe evolution? I mean seriously, how many different fairy tale, magic stories, without any concrete proof have to be woven together before people wake up and smell the Creation?