The Improbability of the Theory of Evolution

​If you’ve gone through the public education system you have most likely been taught that life began in some kind of “Primordial Soup” whereby lightning struck a body of water containing the chemicals essential for life and set off a chain reaction that led to the first living organism.  From there mutations over billions of years incrementally increased the complexity and diversity of life.  The concept of “Natural Selection” holds that creatures with traits best suited for survival endured and passed on those traits, while weaker creatures died off.  In short, the Theory of Evolution would have you believe that through a random series of events over billions of years, a group of lifeless chemicals evolved into highly intelligent beings capable of designing computers and developing artificial intelligence.
 
There are several problems with this theory.  The first is the question of time.  Creationists are presenting an increasingly convincing case that the Earth is not nearly as old as Evolutionists claim.  I will discuss this more in a future post about The Great Flood.  But even granting them the billions of years they say their theory requires, they still face the problem of statistical probability.  The complexity of even a single living cell is such that the odds of a random process forming each structure and then organizing them in such a way as to allow the cell to properly function are so infinitesimally small as to be virtually impossible.
 
One must also ask the question why this spontaneous leap in complexity only occurs with organic materials.  If a highly complex human being can be produced after billions of years of evolution, why is it that a computer microprocessor did not form on its own?
 
And what of the claim that subtle mutations led to the advancement in complexity through Natural Selection?  Observational science reveals that mutations take away genetic information, they do not add to it.  Mutations can account for variations within a species – for example, it is reasonable to believe that modern dogs, wolves, and foxes all came from a common ancestor.  This is also consistent with the Bible, which says that God created all creatures according to their kind.  God created a wolf/dog “kind” and through subsequent generations of interbreeding and mutations we have the variety of creatures we see today within that species.
 
But observational science offers no proof of mutations adding genetic information.  This is important because all living creatures are based on information.  If mutations do not add information, then you can never have a less complex creature evolve into a more complex creature.
 
The way mutations behave is consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics which essential states that systems become less organized over time.  As creatures reproduce there exists the potential for genetic information to become corrupted and for some information to be lost.  This is consistent with what genetic scientists have observed.
 
If the way mutations behave is consistent with a scientific law and consistent with what can be observed, then why are Evolutionists claiming that mutations have behaved in the exact opposite way over the course of billions of years?  They do so because they must.  Their entire theory hinges on simple organisms becoming more complex over time.  So they are willing to contradict, or reinterpret scientific law and replace observational science with theoretical science.  And it is here that you see a disturbing trend among Evolutionists – the suborning of scientific law to prop up theories and tremendous stretches in logic to reach a preconceived conclusion.
 
Occam’s Razor is the principle that the simplest solution is often the correct one.  Everything we’ve learned about genetics and biology points to an intelligent design.  We have ancient manuscripts that have been preserved and reprinted throughout history that describe a process whereby a being designed the universe and everything in it.  Those same manuscripts contain prophecies that have proven to have come true and historical events that are becoming increasingly confirmed through archeological finds.  So one must ask oneself what is the simplest answer?  Is it a highly improbably leap in complexity followed by successive mutations behaving in the exact opposite way mutations would be expected to behave taking life from assorted chemicals to modern humans in billions of years?  Or is it that life is a result of an intelligent design by a creator God whose actions were documented in a book that generations have accepted as truth, including some of history’s most prominent scientific minds?
 
If given the choice between whether your smart phone was the result of an intelligent design created by a human or the result of random chemicals joining and then being struck by lightning, which would you choose?  Hopefully, the answer is obvious to you.  Then why would anyone believe that the being that created the smart phone was the result of the very process you deem impossible to have created the phone?  If the conditions by which evolution is claimed to have occurred could not have resulted in the creation of a smart phone (or even the box your smart phone came in) then how could they possibly have created an infinitely more complex human being?
 
The debate between Evolution and Creation is one that hinges on morality.  Creationists are transparent in where they stand on the issue.  We believe that God created the universe and we have entered the scientific debate to provide counter-arguments to theories that are being pushed as fact by those whose primary goal is to destroy the concept of God.  Evolutionists portray themselves as purely scientific, but there is a sizeable contingent among them that have a moral ax to grind.  That is why they cling to Darwinism with a sort of religious fervor.  That is why they will compromise scientific law and logic to keep the theory alive.  That is why they fight every attempt to put Intelligent Design on an equal footing with Evolution in the classrooms.  Their goal is not to find the best answer to explain our origins.  Their goal is to promote an answer that removes God as the source of our origins.  They do this because Evolution means no God and no God means no consequences for the way they lead their lives.
 
Unfortunately, despite having a compelling case to present for Creation, we are losing this fight – and it is a fight for Christianity in America.  The theories that are being presented as facts to our children in school are undermining their faith in Christ.  Today we are seeing a growing number of young people abandoning their faith as they enter their twenties.  One of the main reasons for this is the perceived incompatibility between the scientific theories they are being taught and the creation story in the Bible.  We are already seeing the ramifications of the cultural shift away from Christianity in the form of increasing immorality and increasing hostility toward Christianity.  This means that unless the trend is reversed, the next generation of young people will grow up in a society that has even stronger forces to pull them away from their faith.
 
Do not assume that your children will grow up to be Christian adults because you read the Bible to them and take them to Sunday School.  You need to educate yourself so that you can be an effective advocate for Creationism.  Do not expect someone else to properly inform them.  Answers in Genesis and Kent Hovind have many free videos on YouTube to help you begin the process of learning more about the case for Creationism.