|
Since time immemorial, the argument on which theory best explains the origin of life has been contentious. While on one side there are those that advocate for evolution as the best hypothesis, some on the other hand believe in creation as the best theory to explain how life originated. Evolutionary theories are mostly advocated by scientists while believers in God or religion are for creation. There are a number of arguments against evolution that seek to illustrate its weaknesses. Most of these arguments seek to prove that life is too complex to have originated by chance. Living organisms must have been designed and created. Most complex systems of that constitute organisms are irreducible and work in unity in performing basic cell functions. Such complex systems cannot be constituted by being gradually assembled over a period of time. The fact that evolutionary theories imply that such systems developed over time is very much under doubt and hardly believable. DNA systems in organisms must have originated from intelligent design. DNA contains highly complex information that is unlikely to be the result of mutations and changes in cell structure. There is not a more complex and efficient storage and retrieval mechanism than DNA. This cannot be the result of gradual change in cells as is the implication of evolutionary theories. One particular principle that evolutionists depend on but which is far from the truth is mutation. Mutation cannot improve the structure of the cells, at least not considerably. It merely changes the behavior and adaptation of the organism. The changes it can make to DNA include deleting, duplicating or damaging information that is contained therein. Beyond that, it is not able to enhance cell structure, more so that of DNA, from simple cell structures. That is irrespective of how long it takes. The evidence relied upon is known to be unreliable in their explanation of past events. For example, there is radiometric dating that is used in age evaluation. This method is not only inconsistent but also unreliable. Radiocarbon method makes use of the carbon 14 isotope and is of particular concern. The use of radioactivity relies on a number of unwarranted assumptions. The assumptions include among others the principle of uniform of uniformitarianism and the assumption that decay rates are consistent. The theories have their credibility undermined by such assumptions. The universe has millions of forms of life both in the sea and on land. All such organisms are not catered for in explaining the origin of life, at least not satisfactorily. The vast forms of life must have originated from some intelligent creation. The evolutionary explanation is not only narrow but also not satisfying. Beyond the origin of organisms, there are a host of features that are scarcely explained. Living things have aspects such as consciousness, emotions and morality that evolutionary theories cannot conclusively explain. Their explanations, if any, are very preliminary and hardly believable. Other than the existence of organisms, it is these attributes that make organisms qualify as living. In addition, non-evolutionary processes like the Big Bang theory are also not well explained. Arguments against evolution also point to the fact that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. The law states that entropy of ideal systems that are isolated either increase or remain unchanged, never decreasing. Evolutionists imply that such systems require decrease in entropy. When you want a review of arguments against evolution, visit the web pages here. You can see a discussion by clicking on the links at http://www.daywithoutyesterday.net now.
Related Articles -
arguments, against, evolution,
| 
