Creation & Evolution- both FAITH based?

ExploreWorldViews2648 views

Or ‘winning’ the battle by sheer default.

The popular perception of the theory of evolution seems to be that it has been proven beyond all doubt and there are no scientific obstacles left for it. In reality, there is enough evidence to prove that this perception is wrong.

One of the main reasons that led to this perception within the general public, is the fact that the evolution theory has been almost entirely adopted and promoted by the majority of the education systems and mainstream media around the world. However, it is fundamental to note that it has not been adopted because it has been proven beyond doubt or because there are no flaws in it. Considering the strong arguments that still stand against it – arguments recognized by a majority of scientists and well known by people having a higher education in this specific area- the reasons why for its adoption go beyond the scientific scope. One such reason is obviously the choice for secularity of a big part of our world (a choice required by the necessary separation between state and religion) for which this theory is simply the only one ‘on the market’. This makes evolution, despite all its shortcomings and the many answers the scientists are still looking for, the theory that is politically correct to embrace and promote in our times.

Nevertheless, as already stated in the mission of this site, political correctness is not our concern, researching and presenting arguments is. In this article we make a short, easy to understand, summary of some of the main arguments and scientific flaws that still stand strongly against evolution, being in favor of intelligent design.


1. the evolution theory from a logical perspective

2. the evolution theory from a scientific perspective

the evolution theory and racism- one of its unfortunate interpretations

3. the evolution theory – other incompatibilities


1. the evolution theory from a logical perspective

Or how the Big Bang itself (cosmology’s preferred explanation for the origin of the universe) leads to the possibility for God’s existence.

The Big Bang is supposed to be the first physical event or state that could have come into existence without a cause -could have in short originated from nothing. This is considered a scientific explanation, despite the fact that the probability of something physical coming from nothing is- based on evidence- zero. Not a single physical state or event being observed or known is known to originate from nothing.

We then have an uncaused reality that exists which is unlike any physical reality that we know of. Logically, this has to be something more than physical, “natural”.  The Big Bang being totally unlike any other bang of which we have any knowledge, “ it is often treated as if it were not quite or not just a physical event, as indeed it could not be… but what then could it be? Enter “scientific mysticism”. Which very soon leads to the conclusion that an eternally self subsistent being is no more improbable than a self subsisted event emerging from no cause… As CS Lewis put it “An egg which came from no bird is no more natural than a bird which had existed eternally.”” Dallas Willard, Professor School of Philosophy, University of Southern California.

The same author added “Evolution, whether cosmic or biological, cannot — logically cannot — be a theory of ultimate origins of existence or order, precisely because its operations always presuppose the prior existence of certain entities with specific potential behaviors, as well as of an environment of some specific kind that operates upon those entities in some specifically ordered (law-governed) fashion, to determine which ones are allowed to survive and reproduce. Let us quite generally state: any sort of evolution of order of any kind will always presuppose pre-existing order and pre-existing entities governed by it. It follows as a simple matter of logic that not all order evolved. Given the physical world — and however much of evolution it may or may not contain — there is or was some order in it which did not evolve. However it may have originated (if it originated), that order did not evolve, for it was the condition of any evolution at all occurring. We come here upon a logically insurpassable limit to what evolution, however it may be understood, can accomplish.”


2. the evolution theory from a scientific perspective

The Big Bang of cosmology describes the origin of the universe as occurring in a powerful explosion that eventually results in the universe as we see it today. Continuing on this thinking pattern, an issue of Time magazine (4 December 1995) heralded a new Big Bang, a Big Bang of biological evolution previously known as the Cambrian Explosion of Life. Still, the evolution theory (or naturalism or abiogenesis) -the theory of life springing from non-living matter- is one of the most refuted concepts of science.

There are many ways in which evolution can be criticized scientifically and those criticisms are very specific. There are also countless examples of genetic characteristics, ecological systems, evolutionary trees, enzyme properties, and other facts that are very difficult to square with the theory of evolution. Detailed descriptions of these can be highly technical and are beyond the scope of this summary. Generally speaking it’s accurate to say that science has yet to provide consistent answers to how evolution operates at the molecular, genetic, or even ecological levels in a consistent and supportable way.

We will try to summarize here only two of the most well known criticisms of the evolutionist theory of life’s origin: the contradiction between ‘punctuated equilibrium’ and ‘gradualism’ and ‘the hazardous projection of microevolution into macroevolution.’


“2.1. the contradiction between ‘punctuated equilibrium’ and ‘gradualism.’

There are 2 basic possibilities for how naturalistic evolution can occur: ‘gradualism’ and ‘punctuated equilibrium’.

Still, despite the fact that there is indeed evidence suggestive of both of them, these 2 ideas are mutually exclusive.

Gradualism implies that organisms experience a relatively steady rate of mutations, resulting in a somewhat “smooth” transition from early forms to later ones. This was the original assumption derived from the theory of evolution.

Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, implies that mutation rates are heavily influenced by a unique set of coincidences. Therefore, organisms will experience long periods of stability, “punctuated” by short bursts of rapid evolution.

But gradualism seems to be contradicted by the fossil record. Organisms appear suddenly and demonstrate little change over long periods. The fossil record has been greatly expanded over the 20th century, and the more fossils that are found, the more gradualism seems to be disproved. It was this overt refutation of gradualism in the fossil record that prompted the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

The fossil record seems to support punctuated equilibrium but here too there are some strong inconsistencies. The basic assumption of punctuated equilibrium is that very few creatures, all from the same large population, can experience several beneficial mutations, all at the same time (unlikely). Then, those few members separate completely from the main population so that their new genes can be passed to the next generation (quite unlikely again). Also given the wide diversity of life, this kind of amazing coincidence would have to happen all the time.

While the improbable nature of punctuated equilibrium speaks for itself, scientific studies have also cast doubt on the benefits it would confer. Separating a few members from a larger population results in inbreeding. This results in decreased reproductive ability, harmful genetic abnormalities, and so forth. In essence, the events that should be promoting “survival of the fittest” cripple the organisms instead.

So despite what some claim, punctuated equilibrium is not a more refined version of gradualism. They have very different assumptions about the mechanisms behind evolution and the way those mechanisms behave. But neither is a satisfactory explanation for how life came to be as diverse and balanced as it is, and yet, so far, there are no other reasonable options for how evolution can operate.


2.2. the hazardous projection of microevolution into macroevolution.

The second flaw is the problem of extending microevolution into macroevolution.

Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of adaptation. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their environment. However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed. These small changes are called “microevolution.” Microevolution can result in some drastic changes, such as those found in dogs. All dogs are the same species, and one can see how much variation there is. But even the most aggressive breeding has never turned a dog into something else. There is a limit to how large, small, smart, or hairy a dog can become through breeding. Experimentally, there is no reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else. Long-term evolution, though, requires “macroevolution,” which refers to those large-scale changes. Microevolution turns a wolf into a Chihuahua or a Great Dane. Macroevolution would turn a fish into a cow or a duck. There is a massive difference in scale and effect between microevolution and macroevolution. This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another.

In summary, the naturalistic/evolutionist viewpoint presumes that life on earth -self-replicating, self-sustaining, complex organic life- arose by chance from non-living matter. But such a thing has never been observed in all of human history. The beneficial evolutionary changes needed to progress a creature to a more complex form have never been observed neither. One can fairly state that through these particular claims- based on the human experience- evolutionism ironically competes with creationism for “miraculous” claims.

There is therefore no scientific or logical basis to accept evolutionist presuppositions outright and flatly reject creationist presuppositions.

Also firm belief in creation is of course no barrier to scientific discovery. Simply review the accomplishments of men like Newton, Pasteur, Mendel, Pascal, Kelvin, Linnaeus, and Maxwell. All were clear and comfortable creationists. Still creationism is not a ‘science’, just as naturalism is not a ‘science’.”

(Reprinted by permission from Got Questions Ministries


the evolution theory and racism- one of its unfortunate interpretations (or why a scientific theory -that is proven to have sufficient flaws- should not be taken into the metaphysical)

“Some 19th- and 20th-century Darwinists thought that all non-Caucasian people were ape-like and therefore inferior to whites. Darwin himself coupled Negroes and Australian Aborigines with gorillas and contrasted them with Caucasians -despite the fact that Negroes, Aborigines and Caucasians are all 100% human, while gorillas are 100% ape.

Essentially, this is what modern Darwinists do also with groups like the Neanderthals. But everything we know about Neanderthals suggests that they were just as human as modern-day Australian Aborigines. They were skilled hunters, lived in complex societies, buried their dead, and practiced religion.

The bottom line is, deformities and variations within genomes involve the duplication, misplacement, loss and/or reshuffling of preexisting genetic information and are observed in the natural world and have mechanisms that are identifiable and understood. But the evolution of prosimians into monkeys or monkeys into apes or apes into humans would involve the addition of new genetic information into a genome, a process that again has never been observed in nature and whose mechanisms have not been identified by scientists.

Thus an obvious flaw of the evolution theory comes from its application, the theory being abused for non-scientific purposes. There are still many, many questions about biological life that evolution has not answered. And yet, there are those who try to transform the theory from a biological explanation into a metaphysical one.

Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion, spirituality, or God, they are not only ignoring some clear facts but also taking the theory outside of its own limits.”

(Reprinted by permission from Got Questions Ministries


3. other examples of incompatibility with the theory of evolution:

the concept of irreducible complexity

Irreducible complexity is an aspect of the Intelligent Design Theory that argues some biological systems are so complex and so dependent upon multiple complex parts that they could not have evolved by chance. Unless all the parts of a system all evolved at the same time, the system would be useless, and therefore would actually be a detriment to the organism and, according to the “laws” of evolution, would naturally be selected out of the organism. While irreducible complexity does not explicitly prove an intelligent Designer, and does not conclusively disprove evolution, it most definitely points to something outside of random processes in the origin and development of biological life.


As we all know, in our human experience, before any order is imparted to our physical creations, order first existed in our minds. Design in mind precedes design in kind. Please try to think of at least one case of ordered being -or just being- originating from being without order.

quantum physics

“In the early expansion of the universe there has to be a close balance between the expansive energy (driving things apart) and the force of gravity (pulling things together). If expansion dominated then matter would fly apart too rapidly for condensation into galaxies and stars to take place. Nothing interesting could happen in so thinly spread a world. On the other hand if gravity dominated, the world would collapse in on itself again before there was time for the process of life to get going. For us to be possible requires a balance between the effects of expansion and contraction which at the very early epoch in the universe’s history (the Planck time) has to differ from equality by not more than 1 in 10 raised at power 60. The numerate will marvel at such a degree of accuracy. For the non-numerate I will borrow an illustration from Paul Davies of what that accuracy means. He points out that it is the same as aiming at a target an inch wide on the other side of the observable universe, 20 000 million light years away, and hitting the mark!”

The quantum physicist Dr. John Polkinghorne, president of Queens College, Cambridge, in his book “The Quantum World” hailed by Physics Bulletin as one of the finest in its genre.

There are also other examples of natural phenomenon which seem incompatible with the evolution theory like the chemical properties of water, the brain plasticity, the Earth position to the Sun etc. Feel free to investigate yourself the technical details behind these examples.



Since there are sufficient solidly scientific reasons to question the theory of evolution, one can reasonably say that it is certainly a theory far from settled, with strong logical and experiential flaws, and rational people should question it scientifically.

Some others would argue that after careful consideration evolution may require more faith than intelligent design. There are established scientific facts that are consistent with intelligent design/creationism- if only for the concepts of realistic probability, the contradictions of gradualism and punctuated equilibrium, the evidence of experience for macroevolution, the concept of irreducible complexity and so forth.

Considering strictly the facts, it is therefore uncanny that some evolutionary scientists still mock intelligent design as unscientific. In order for something to be considered a “science,” they argue, it must be able to be observed and tested. However this is truly hypocritical since the origin of the universe and the origin of life cannot be tested or observed.

After thorough study on the subject the least one could say is that there is enough evidence to state that both creation and evolution are faith-based systems in regards to origins.

So when you encounter people who still go over their way in their attempt to perpetuate the idea that evolution is a “fact”, labeling creationism as unscientific and/or unintelligent as opposed to evolutionism, please remind them that their attempt is clearly ignoring evidence and science all together.

(Sources: Wikipedia,, Ravi Zacharias ‘Can man live without God’)

To read Einstein’s view on the matter click here. Read more about the fact that God cannot be disproved by science, here.


on the funny side

the Coelacanth

“The fields of paleontology and fossilology are highly prone to error. In the last century we have witnessed countless examples of “ground-breaking” discoveries that have ultimately been proven wrong. Recall, for example, the Coelacanth. Declared extinct for about 70 million years, this fish was thought by scientists to have been the fish that first walked out of the ocean on its way to becoming the ascendant of modern man. One can only imagine the disappointment in the scientific community when a fisherman caught one off the island of Madagascar in 1938. No lungs, no legs. Interestingly, many evolutionists believed the reason this fish disappeared from the fossil record is because it evolved into land-dwelling tetrapods. And here they are, still swimming in and around the Indian Ocean. No lungs, no legs. Yet how many fossils were dated to be roughly 70 million years old simply because their fossilized remains were found in the same strata as the fossilized remains of the “70 million-year-old” coelacanth? This is one example why using the geologic timescale to date the age of the Earth does not work.”

(Reprinted with permission from Got Questions Ministries


So how rational are we when forming opinions?

Dan Ariely, behavioral economist, author of ‘Predictably Irrational’, is really funny in this video that attempts to explain how deeply ‘rational and conscious’ we are in our judgments and choices. Aside the joke, it is actually disturbing to see the extent to which people choose by sheer default…