Published December 08, 2008 10:02 am - The evolution hypothesis has many weaknesses, which violate both common sense and valid laws of science, such as these:
Evolution defies laws of science
Paul Burris
The Port Arthur News
The evolution hypothesis has many weaknesses, which violate both common sense and valid laws of science, such as these:
1. The Law of Cause and Effect: “Every material effect must have an adequate cause that happens before the effect.” Evolution begins with the explosion of a tiny bit of matter no larger than the period at the end of this sentence. Produced is our vast and orderly universe with 25 sextillion stars and over one billion galaxies.
2. An explosion produces chaos and disorder, not the orderly result which we can see.
3. The hypothesis violates the First Law of Thermodynamics: “Neither matter nor energy is created or destroyed in nature.” (That tiny bit of matter just happened to be there. Nobody made it. Matter itself is eternal — so goes the hypothesis.)
4. The hypothesis violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “Matter and energy are moving toward a less usable, more disorderly state.” This is called “entropy.” They do not organize themselves into something more orderly, as the hypothesis claims.
5. The hypothesis violates the Law of Biogenesis: “Living things always come from living things, and produce more living things like themselves.” It teaches that life arose by pure chance from non-living matter.
6. The hypothesis contradicts the fossil record and vice-versa. Whenever a form of life first appears as a fossil, it is already fully developed — no “missing links” although the hypothesis demands a multitude of them.
7. Micro-evolution (spelled with an “i”) is observable, but macro-evolution (spelled with an “a”) is never observable. Micro-evolution is that which takes place within a form of life - for example, genetics produces many different kinds of dogs, but never do dogs turn into something else like rabbits, horses or cats (macro-evolution).
Ridiculous illustration? Of course, but no more so than an invertebrate (without a backbone) changing into a vertebrate (having a backbone), as in macro-evolution.
These are problems for the evolutionist, but not for creationism or intelligent design.
Paul Burris
Groves