Answers to Atheists Philosophical


One of the more common arguments made by evolutionary proponents to Creationists is that “evolution is a clear and undisputed scientific fact”. Such a statement equates anyone that might have opposing views as at best ignorant or in the worst case a straight-up lunatic. Of course, such statements that “evolution is a scientific fact” are definitionally and broadly true, but, in many instances, definitions of evolution are certainly not scientific but are mere conjectures that tell the story of the transmutation of species.

The world has arisen in some way or another. How it originated is the great question, and Darwin’s theory, like all other attempts, to explain the origin of life, is thus far merely conjectural.”

Louis Agassiz

True examples contained within the massive scope of the definition of “evolution” include elements of undisputed scientific fact and story-like narratives of conjecture.

First, one undisputed scientific fact is the cause and effect of heredity on offspring during reproduction. No one disputes this reality and never has how diversity within gene selection (DNA alleles) at conception causes offspring to inherit various traits from its parents in a pattern of selected dominant and recessive allele traits. The same species generate offspring with the variable traits of its parents–scientific fact.

PROBLEMS FOR EVOLUTION: Genetic research observes variety occurring within species but only within the same family or genus. The genetic process of DNA allele function at gene selection vastly limits acceptable genetic changes or what genes are available to select. In other words, mutations are usually not passed to sex genes, and the parents’ genes are limited by allele function at conception. With every species from bacteria to humankind being caught in a genetic stasis, exactly is the mechanism for the transmutation of species?

Second, mutations occur that cause changes to genetic material. Only genes used at reproduction called alleles can pass traits to the offspring, so this is where changes must occur. Mutations occur at a very slow rate due to the careful and watchful management of DNA correction software, but such errors still do occur all the time.

PROBLEMS FOR EVOLUTION: Mutation rates occur much too slow to account for all variety on earth–even if many hundreds of billions of years are assumed. Also, mutations are literal errors that accumulate in genetic material as DNA replicates called somatic mutations. Only a tiny fraction of somatic mutations ever pass to the sex cells (germ-line mutations). Those germ-line mutations that pass to the DNA alleles (outside trait genes such as eye or hair color) are always degradative. This appears to mean that the original genetic code is always better than the resulting mutated information. Somatic mutations cause over 2/3 of all cancers in humans. They are also a cause of many diseases, suffering, and even death. Therefore, where is the mutational mechanism to bring about all the positive and fitness enhancements promised by transmutational evolution?

Third, genetics have been discovered to be written in a computer code like language complete with letters, sentences, syntax, punctuation, and more. The language has been determined to be a universal language that seems to indicate a universal source or perhaps ancestry of all living organisms.

PROBLEMS FOR EVOLUTION: While many evolutionary proponents see the genetic code’s universality as evidence for common ancestry and species’ transmutation, the evidence can mean many things. Suppose you apply common sense and consider that mutations are thought to be randomly and spontaneously happening throughout nature for many billions of years. The idea that a random and purposeless nature would hold so tightly to such specified genetic rules is counterintuitive. The distance between the protein assembly of organisms should be unidentifiable between bacteria and humans, but they are not. Similarities in code exist within all living creatures. Perhaps this is evidence of a common designer and intelligent code writer and not necessarily the work of a random and purposeless nature.

Some creationists will separate such observable and scientific parts of evolution as belonging to a “micro-evolution,” which they largely say “is true,” from those not observable large scale assumptions such as the transmutation of species as “macro-evolution,” which is “untrue.” We do not make such distinctions because any scientific CONCLUSION is derived from a combination of evidence, educated guesses, narratives, conjectures, and assumptions. Such conclusions are compiled into a belief or worldview.

Belief is at best an educated, informed conjecture about reality.”

Steve Hagen

Our website is named “evolution is a myth.” This name does not sit well with many creationists or Christians alike because many have stated that it sounds ignorant for many of the very reasons we identified above. Clearly, there are components of evolution that are purely factual–right? Yes, there are facts, but again, conclusions are not usually purely exclusive from conjecture.

When we state that “evolution is a myth,” we are communicating that the entirety of the worldview of transmutational evolution is mythological. Sure, aspects are definitionally true, which helps to bolster their naturalistic perspectives. Still, we believe the entire concept of “evolution” is false and serves as a modern false religion or mythology. I know that likely sounds shocking because it likely goes against everything you have been taught, told, and shown since you were in grade school.

The first areas we discussed, which offered at least some scientific rationality for “evolution,” included heredity, mutations, and the universal genetic code. Of course, there are other arguments, but we shall focus on these three to make our point. A simple internet search can verify that these three observable areas of heredity, mutations, and the universal genetic code are used as a foundation to build the reasoning of the whole of evolutionary theory.

As an example, because heredity and mutations cause observable changes and variation in offspring, therefore (here is the conjecture), all life transmutated from a simple bacteria-like organism to more complex multi-cellular life forms like human beings. This massive “therefore” stands as perhaps the greatest stretch from facts to fictional conjecture in all of science. The only other conjecture that might be greater is the narrative of the emergence of life from non-living chemicals (for another blog).

The transmutation of species is built upon the foundation of vivid and imaginative narratives derived by direct scientific evidence– but not concluded by such evidence. When we think about what science and the field of genetics have clearly revealed, transmutation has virtually no chance of ever occurring. There remains no evidence to support mutations driving beneficial fitness, let alone gain the building potency to create new living organisms’. However, one would never suspect this with the massive body of narratives used to “fill in the gaps” of evolutionary and common ancestry theories. It is clear, where actual scientific evidence is lacking, narratives abound.

Finally, all fields of science, except evolutionary biology, acknowledge entropy as an observable scientific constant. This constant is found everywhere in the universe. Entropy finds hot things become cold, energy dissipates and spreads out, organized structures become disordered, the order becomes chaos, and living things die. The more time that passes, the worse entropy becomes. This is true for all fields of science except evolutionary biology because biology is tied to a non-scientific narrative that imagines living organisms gaining fitness, becoming smarter, and growing stronger over the addition of billions of years. Such concepts are clearly non-scientific and have never been observed under any scientific instrument. However, such concepts are defended at all costs because they are the foundations of the prevailing worldview of evolution and naturalism.