What About Intelligent Design? – Part 4 – Is Evolution An Intelligent Theory?

The Theory of Evolution is an extremely well-developed theory. What I mean by that is it has become extremely sophisticated in its explanations, and these have permeated every area of science. In each respective field evolutionary theory has sought to explain things. In this way, the Theory of Evolution has dominated science. But overwhelming presence doesn’t not equal truth. I am convinced that despite all the theory, the evidence doesn’t support it.

We are all looking at the same evidence. The misconception is that people who believe in Intelligent Design only look at the Bible and close their eyes to things like the fossil record. The opposite is true. As previously stated, I.D. is the scientific arm that is often but not always complimented by biblical Creationism (the religious side of things). So those supporting I.D. are looking at the same evidence, but are interpreting it differently.

Today I want to focus on some of the evidence given for the Theory of Evolution. (I will be borrowing a bit from Lee Strobel’s The Case for a Creator, because he lays out these so-called evidences well.) Every science textbook seems to show the same “proofs.” But are they really proofs? In many cases evolutionary science is disproved by the other sciences.

For example, one of the pictures that shows up in many science textbooks is Darwin’s tree of life. It shows how everything had a common ancestor, and then slowly branched off into differing species over time and small variations in the species crept in. This is supposed to have happened slowly and gradually over a long period of time, with no sudden changes. However science also looks at the fossil record and sees what is known as the Cambrian Explosion which does just that. It was supposedly a time in history when a whole bunch of species just “exploded” into existence. This did not happen via the slow gradual process that evolution suggests.

Another picture that shows up in textbooks are the drawings of Ernst Haeckel of an experiment he performed involving embryos. He claimed that the embryos of a fish, salamander, tortoise, chicken, hog, calf, rabbit and human were so similar during the three stages of development in the womb that it proved that everything had a common ancestor. To illustrate his point, he drew pictures of the embryos in their various stages to show the world. The problem was that the results were proven fraudulent almost immediately. He quite blatantly made them up. When you look at what the embryos of these things really look like, they are quite different from both Haeckel’s drawings, and from each other in reality. This was discovered in the 1860s, yet the pictures still show up in science textbooks as “proof” of Darwinian evolution.

Another major problem with the Theory of Evolution: it contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Law states that everything in the universe is in a process of decay, going from order to disorder. But evolutionary theory assumes the opposite, that everything is evolving from disorder into improved order.

Also, evolution doesn’t not explain how many things could evolve at once in a single creature. This goes back to something mentioned yesterday about how certain pieces of some organisms don’t work at all until all the pieces are in place. Likewise, how could multiple organ systems evolve at the same time? For example, how could the human circulatory system and respiratory systems have evolved separately, if they only work in correlation to each other? If we assume they evolved at the same time, it still doesn’t solve the problem, because the system wouldn’t be functioning if only half complete, and evolution says only things useful for survival continue to evolve.

With these and other things considered, I think that proponents of the Theory of Evolution have a lot of explaining to do if you’d expect me to believe what they are proposing. I understand that sometimes we don’t have answers, and that’s okay. The future always brings new discoveries. But if the mechanisms don’t work at all, or there is no proof that they do, scientifically that is a far cry from being a definite fact. Science itself should hold much against the Theory of Evolution, but instead it has accepted it semantically without the concrete evidence.

Advertisements

One Response to What About Intelligent Design? – Part 4 – Is Evolution An Intelligent Theory?

  1. I am sorry, but you can’t make a statement like this
    “Another major problem with the Theory of Evolution: it contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Law states that everything in the universe is in a process of decay, going from order to disorder. But evolutionary theory assumes the opposite, that everything is evolving from disorder into improved order.”

    while still claiming that you’re doing things in a scientifically rigorous manner. You clearly don’t understand the basic laws of physics if you think that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics. I can’t believe you think the scientific community would ever let a theory pass if it violated one of the most fundamental laws of nature.

    Also, just presenting your misconceived notions of flaws in evolutionary theory also doesn’t qualify you as doing science. You need to present some facts for your own theory. I have yet to see any creationist do such a thing.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: