What are some of the flaws in the theory of evolution?
The theory of evolution is as bold as any faith system in its declarations about the origins and processes of life. It even has an answer for the meaning of life: the meaning of life is to evolve, to improve and be better than those who came before you. There are a large number of highly specific criticisms of evolution, which can be described in detail on a case-by-case basis. Genetics, ecology, and especially molecular science offer countless examples of things that the theory of evolution cannot explain in a way which is consistent and supportable. Unfortunately, these examples are so technical that we cannot hope to do them justice here.
There are also a few general principles that we can discuss. First, is the contradiction between two schools of evolutionary thought. At first, evolutionary theory assumed that over millions and millions of years, all animal life evolved from a single cell, slowly and gradually over time. This was called "gradualism." At some point, however, it became evident from the fossil record that organisms suddenly "appear" in the record, and then exist for long periods of time without changing. Because of this contradiction to the theory, evolutionists began to postulate that life evolved in short bursts, rather than gradually over time. This was called "punctuated equilibrium." The idea is that a few animals within a larger group would suddenly evolve and move away from the herd to create a new species. This would depend on a number of coincidences. For example, beneficial mutations are rare. And they would have to occur in at least one female and one male from the herd at exactly the same time. Both animals would have to be healthy, make it to adulthood (given the propensity of creatures to destroy that which is different, this also seems unlikely), and then mate and produce healthy offspring. This not only has to occur in one species, but in many species, successfully, many times throughout history. Delicate ecosystems would have to adapt very quickly to accommodate the new creatures, and all of this ignores the very real possibility of inbreeding. Inbred animals suffer from disease and deformity, which denies the whole point of evolution: to grow into something better.
Another serious issue for evolutionists is how microevolution (the proven tendency of animals to adapt to their environments) extends to macroevolution (the unproven tendency of animals to morph into new animals over time). Some microevolution is drastic—it is amazing that a Rat Terrier and a Great Dane are the same species. But there is no visible evidence, today or in the fossil record, to suggest that a Great Dane can (and will) become a horse if given enough time.
For all their protestations against the idea of God being ridiculous, the evolutionist has only what any other believer has: evidence, and faith in that evidence. Christians allow many mysteries to exist in conjunction with their faith, because we believe that God is a just and loving Father God who will not lie to us, and we also believe He is a holy and wise God whose thoughts are higher than ours. There may be things we are not meant to know. The evolutionist, whose faith rests in only the impersonal evidence he finds in nature, does not have the luxury of accepting apparent contradictions. When problems arise in the theory, he is trapped by the very empiricism that he believes in. Usually, the evolutionist will say "we just don't know yet" in the hope that new evidence will be discovered to show how A and B, which are contradictory, can actually exist in harmony. However, when A and B are factual, empirical scientific discoveries, waiting for some new evidence to appear and solve the contradiction is a vain hope at best. If evolutionary theory was truly dedicated to scientific truth, even one shred of unassailable evidence would be reason to put the theory of evolution away and begin seeking another answer to the question of origins. But this is not the case. Ironically, the average evolutionist's unwillingness to reject the theory, despite clear evidence that the theory is fatally flawed, is what might be called blind faith—exactly the kind of thing evolutionists claim to despise in religious men.
Copyright 2011-2024 Got Questions Ministries - All Rights Reserved.
