The Absurdity of Evolutionary Thought

Anti-evolution car in Athens, Georgia

Anti-evolution car in Athens, Georgia. … (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I believe in creationism, not evolution, so of course there are many things about evolution I find absurd, but perhaps most absurd are the origins arguments evolutionists propose.

To begin at the broadest point, evolution posits that somehow something came from nothing—literally. Somehow, according to the theory, the universe exploded into existence where there previously had been not just a void (which is something), but nothing at all, no material existence. To narrow things a bit more, evolution says life sprang from nonlife, that a pool of chemicals (and who knows where those came from) produced some sort of reaction that in turn produced the first living organism, like Frankenstein’s monster rising from a pile of lifeless, stitched-together body parts.

Something from nothing. Life from nonlife. Without any outside assistance or intervention.

Completely absurd.

But it gets even better. I’ll presume, for the sake of argument, that this primordial soup of chemicals did produce the first living organism, some sort of single-celled creature. This life form would have to be self-replicating, which is reasonable (such organisms exist today), but where would it get the genetic information to produce anything but more single-celled organisms like itself? Did random mutations produce new information? Impossible; mutations do not produce new info—in fact, any mutations would result only in a loss of genetic information, so the only thing the single-celled organism could produce would be more versions of itself, and genetically degraded ones at that. Thus, without outside assistance or intervention, no new information would be available, which means no other life forms could ever have arisen.

Evolutionists often enjoy mocking Biblical, creationist thinking, but if God is God, He can do anything. More to the point, He can do all the things that atheistic, evolutionary thinking can’t account for: create something out of nothing, create life from nonlife, and create all the basic kinds of creatures, each kind independent of the others but with enough built-in genetic flexibility to produce the great variety of species we see in the world today.


16 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Craig Brann
    May 09, 2012 @ 17:17:30

    Because THE God exists and is Who He is, we can disbelieve but being made in His image- His attributes are inescapable. Therefore, even ‘sincere’ science may frame data excluding Him explicitly, His attributes show up all over the place. Like His aseity, creation ex nihilo, unity in diversity, etc.
    Great post to get one thinking!


  2. Stark, Dreadful, and Inescapable.
    May 09, 2012 @ 18:00:12

    People still believe this? First off, the theory of Evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life. Nothing. At all. Whatsoever. The theory of Evolution is a way to explain our humble beginnings as a single celled organism to what we are now. It is put simply, change over time. That’s it.

    You can say that a single-celled organism could not become a human, but then you’d be saying zygotes don’t become humans, in which case, you are lost beyond all means.


    • Craig Brann
      May 10, 2012 @ 08:52:47

      Basic, reproducible experiment: identify any zygote which is NOT the result if two human forebears. Go ahead. Do science. Funny, every zygote in existence is the result of two human forebears.


    • jasondrexler
      May 10, 2012 @ 09:27:51

      Hey, man, thanks for stopping by and commenting. Of course people still believe this! Millions of Bible-believing Christians the world over.

      You’re right, of course, about evolution not involving the origins of life; I should’ve chosen my words more carefully. Perhaps it would’ve been better to say that people who hold to an evolutionary worldview tend to believe those things I talked about, because they essentially have to—without a belief in God, the only other option is to believe that the universe came into existence “on its own,” from nothing, and that life spontaneously arose “on its own” from nonlife. My main point nonetheless remains the same: that those ideas are absurd. Without God, something cannot come from nothing, and life cannot come from nonlife.

      Yes, a zygote is indeed a single-celled organism, but it contains the genetic information of a human being, and is therefore not an example of one kind or species changing into another, but one stage in the growth and development of a human being. The single-celled organism I used as an example in my original post is not a simpler stage of a creature that will develop further, but a creature wholly unto itself; in that scenario, the only offspring it could possibly produce would be more single-celled organisms like itself, because this is the only genetic information it carries.


      • Stark, Dreadful, and Inescapable.
        May 10, 2012 @ 10:41:24

        I do want to thank you sincerely for a civil reply. I appreciate that more than you know. Forgive me for taking a quote from a forum: “It’s easy to imagine when you realise that a multicell organism is just a ‘society’ of single celled organisms. Just as animals may form societies, they may also be individuals. Humans are a collection of individual cells, organised into a complex society. In the begining, the societies weren’t complex, they were just together. Over time, ‘laws’ evolved, where the societies of cells worked together to make more and more effective ‘societies’.”

        With that said, there was about 3 billion years before the single-celled organisms did much of anything. Most of it was probably just a series of clumping and unclumping, and eventually one worked out and provided genetic variation. Complex organisms are really nothing more than a massive clump of single-celled organisms. I think it’s quite beautiful to think about, really.

      • jasondrexler
        May 10, 2012 @ 11:14:57

        You’re quite welcome. I really do want to be and remain civil; too many of us these days are so quick on the trigger with scorn and sarcasm, and I’ve certainly been guilty of that at times, but I’m learning.

        Borrowing a forum quote is fine with me—anything that can contribute to the conversation is welcome. I see your point about being individuals and part of a group at the same time, but I think that illustration falls short in one crucial aspect: Animals and humans use their minds to make decisions, and when it comes to genetic information, the genome is the “mind,” if you will: it determines what the creature is (physically)—but unlike animals and humans, which can work with things that are outside of themselves (such as natural debris or tools), the genomic “mind” can only work with what it already has; it can’t go out and get novel genetic information, nor can any natural process add novel genetic information to it. As I said in another comment on this post—to Adam, I think—evolution relies not only on natural selection but on the presence of numerous beneficial mutations—but not only are beneficial mutations rare, mutations of any kind never add novel genetic information. If a person’s gene for the number of fingers on their hand undergoes a mutation, which is a copying error, that hand might end up with 6 fingers or 4 fingers instead of 5, or some other “deformity,” but the gene is still “the finger gene”; no new gene has been added to the person’s genome. The only genes a human could ever have (at least, through natural processes) are those that are present in the “master makeup” of the “human kind” genome.

    • Craig Brann
      May 10, 2012 @ 09:46:02

      LOL- Exactly- otherwise even the most uninformed fundamentalist could rightly argue that a zygote doesn’t become human (if we are talking about llama zygotes).


  3. creation science study
    May 09, 2012 @ 19:49:15

    good questions to ask a Darwinist. Don’t think they’ll be able to respond.


  4. Adam Benton
    May 10, 2012 @ 05:57:16

    When talking about genetic information and mutation it is important to have a clear definition of genetic information.

    You might define it as the number of genes in a genome. However, say a particular gene mutates.
    The result might be more efficient at doing its job, yet the number of genes is the same. As such even though you have a better genome, according to this definition the genetic information has remained the same.

    So maybe instead you define it as how efficient a genome is. But say there was a duplication event.
    By having two genes making a protein you’d get more of the protein, which might be beneficial. As such this definition genetic information would’ve increased despite the fact no novel genes have been made.

    As you can hopefully see, “genetic information” is rather hard to define. That is why most scientists don’t bother with it, instead talking simply about genes and their functions. Those two terms have clear definitions and so are more useful.


    • jasondrexler
      May 10, 2012 @ 10:41:48

      Hi, Adam. Thank you for taking the time to read and comment!

      I think I see your point about genetic information, and thank you for explaining those things to me. I’ll try to clarify what I meant by “genetic information”: I was referring to the fact that any creature’s DNA contains only information for whatever “kind” it is—for example, a dog’s DNA contains genetic information pertaining only to the dog kind, and not any other. There will be genetic variation, especially as populations splinter into separate, genetically isolated groups, so you end up with a spectrum ranging from the wild wolf to the domestic dog, with all sorts of body sizes, coat types, and hair colors, but all of these possible variations are already present in the basic “dog kind” DNA, which will never produce anything but various types of dogs. No member of the dog kind, for example, could ever develop wings and become some type of flying creature, because this trait is nowhere in the “master makeup” of the dog kind’s DNA. There could certainly be mutations, but mutations, which are genetic mistakes, rarely produce a benefit to the creature involved, and mutations never give rise to new genetic information (that is, new gene types), such as the arrival of a “wing” gene in the dog kind.

      In your first example, I’ll presume, for the sake of your argument, that the mutation indeed allows the gene in question to be more efficient at doing its job—but being more efficient is different from gaining novel information that will help the creature toward becoming another kind of creature. Likewise, in your second example I’ll again give you the benefit of the doubt, presuming that there’s increased production of a beneficial protein—but again, no novel information has been added to the genome that would help the creature toward becoming a different kind of creature.

      Evolution relies not only on natural selection, but on the presence of beneficial mutations that add novel information to help one kind—say, reptiles—transform into another kind, such as birds. But not only are beneficial mutations rare, mutations of any kind don’t add novel information. Apples will always be apples, and dogs will always be dogs, and not amount of time—not even eternity—will change that.


      • Stark, Dreadful, and Inescapable.
        May 10, 2012 @ 11:59:05

        I couldn’t reply to your reply on my post, so I’ll reply to this.

        That’s a common mistake. There are no “beneficial” mutations. Only mutations that best fit the constantly changing environment. We’ll take eyes for instance, 51% of an eye is still better than 50%. As these organisms begin to form their eyes over many generations (and we’ve seen each stage of the development of the eye in animals we’ve seen in caves and other low light areas) there is a high chance that other features of the animal are changing as well. Rarely does the environment only call for a change in one specific trait. As these traits change over a vast amount of time, literally hundreds of thousands of generations, the organism begins to look completely different from its ancestors a hundred thousand years ago.

    • Adam Benton
      May 12, 2012 @ 03:42:21

      A slight correction. When I said novel I in fact meant de novo.


  5. Trackback: You May Be Wrong, You May Be Right « Jason Drexler Writes

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: