Why I Reject Evolution

​     Here you will find a stepwise approach to the thought process that I used to conclude that creation, not evolution, is the best explanation for what we observe in nature. Before I get into the nitty gritty, I want to be transparent about any perceived biases one may think that I have. While I openly admit that I am a Christian, I want to make it clear that I approached the “evidence” for evolution, by evaluating the reasonableness of what it proposes, without assuming the validity of any of my own presuppositions. I actively searched for so-called "irrefutable evidence", and was open to accepting the evolutionary theory should I have found convincing observable evidence. While accepting evolution would have distorted my worldview, my desire for truth superseded any concern that I had about needing to readjust that worldview. In my search, what I found, was that accepting evolution required more active faith than accepting that a creator was the source of the diversity of life. Seeing that the evolutionary “theory” is an attempt to explain the origin of species, and not the origin of life, I acknowledge that one can believe in a creator, while simultaneously believing in evolution. However, I do not find that there is a reason to do so, as the evidence in favor of evolution is lacking. This article is intended to reason with genuine seekers of truth. Whether you have not come to a conclusion about evolution, are looking to solidify your faith in the inerrancy of Scripture, or believe that evolution is factual but you’re open to hearing a different perspective, then this article is for you. While I do have a background in the life sciences, I am not presenting my argument as a formal scientific article, or with the intention to ever be published in a journal. However, I am fully open to peer-review and critique, and welcome anyone to present challenges, questions or published content they have collected to refute my position. Keep that in mind throughout the reading of this article. ​

     When it comes to the “theory” of evolution, and how it affects our worldview, it is important for us to first address what “truth” is. One would think that it should not be necessary to define truth at all, regardless of the topic at hand. After all, not only does the term seem to define itself, but naturally we all know what it is. We innately acknowledge its importance in all communication, and we expect any information that is referred to as “science” to be consistent with it. The Oxford Dictionary defines truth as: ‘(n) that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality’. If it is not consistent with reality, or is not factual, it cannot be referred to as true; it’s that simple. Yet when it comes to the deception of evolution, it is not as simple as you would expect it be.

     Proponents of evolution (later referred to as evolutionists), appear not to care if their interpretation of the “evidence” comports with reality. Rather, they begin with the presupposition that the supernatural is not possible, and thus conclude that evolution, ‘a purely natural, unguided process,’ is the only plausible explanation for our existence. They continue to interpret any “evidence” they collect within this framework. Underlying this narrow position, is the assumption that one must be able to readily observe the supernatural for it to be a viable option. Not only is this conclusion illogical, but it is also self-defeating. It is illogical because we are continuously learning about things that we previously never observed. There was a time we didn’t know oxygen existed, because we had never observed or studied it. That didn’t mean it wasn’t sustaining our lives while we were unaware of it. We didn’t even learn about DNA until the 20th century, but that didn’t mean it wasn’t the code for life while we were ignorant of it. Their argument is self-defeating because we have never observed evolution as they portray it to be either. To be consistent in their reasoning, they should logically conclude that (like the supernatural), evolution is also not possible because they have never observed it. They could also conclude that both evolution and/or the supernatural are possible explanations for our existence, despite the fact that neither of them are readily observable. However, they do not make either conclusion, because they are not being intellectually honest.

     At this point, many evolutionists would be outraged. Adamantly, they would declare that we regularly observe evolution. Are they speaking the truth? Well, we cannot discuss this topic without first addressing the variable definitions of evolution that exist. This is where the deception begins. Let’s first take a look at the Oxford Dictionary definition of evolution. It is defined there as ‘the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.’ Notice that evolution is referred to as a THOUGHT here. Since when can anything be established as a theory, based solely on one’s THOUGHTS? It should be clear to any rational person that one’s thoughts cannot be stated as factual unless they are able to demonstrate those thoughts. The standard for demonstration is vastly different for a concept that is claimed to be a science, than for a concept that makes a claim to the unknowable. The former requires observable, repeatable evidence, while the latter requires philosophical arguments and reasoning. So, are the evolutionists being truthful? They are not! Evolution as defined by the Oxford Dictionary has NEVER been observed! There is a perfectly valid reason why the Oxford Dictionary still refers to evolution as a thought. It is because evolution is an idea that is rooted in assumptions that have never been demonstrated. NEVER.

     Whenever evolutionists assert that evolution can be referred to as a scientific theory, or an established fact, they deceive the masses. Most people expect science to be grounded in observable facts, and devoid of unverified assumptions. If one is ignorant of the supposed "evidence" for evolution, or its claims, and then a reputable instructor tells them it is a scientific theory, they sadly just accept this position. Not because they are unintelligent, but because they trust their teachers/professors not to deceive them. Not only is it disingenuous to call evolution a theory (or fact), tainting the minds of students, but it is worse to force taxpayers to pay for its inclusion in public schools, thereby forcing our children to be exposed to the deception.

     Let’s briefly go over the scientific method and establish which steps the evolutionist fails to follow. The general steps of the scientific method are:

1.) Observation and description of a phenomenon
2.) Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon
3.) Testing of the hypothesis
4.) Establishing a theory based on the repeated verifications of the results

The following is what evolutionists are doing:
​
1.) Observing that there are phenotypic variations within a species, and perceived similarities between species
2.) Formulating a hypothesis that all species must have a common ancestor that was a different life form (there is no way to authenticate such a hypothesis since it is based on history- nor have we observed it in action in real time)
3.) Testing the hypothesis by collecting data that shows variations within a species, and similarities between species (the SAME data they used to formulate the hypothesis!)
4. Unabashedly, attempting to establish the evolutionary theory

     The scientific method is a systematic study recognized by the NIH as fundamental to the acquisition of biological knowledge and dissemination, and yet evolutionists fail to implement it properly. They ASSUME that the diversity of life was formed via a gradual process, over billions of years, and that all lifeforms are somehow related, based purely on speculation and conjecture. They follow this by making no observable predictions, nor have they been able to replicate the HUGE assumption of the theory in any setting whatsoever. This is faith, it is religion minus God, it is philosophy, it is not science. For this reason, we should refer to speciation, the evolutionary theory, and all its poorly supported assumptions as (unreasonable) hypotheses. But there’s more to dissect.

     The more you analyze the position and assumptions of the evolutionary theory, the more you realize they have no legitimate reason to refer to it as science. At best, it can be referred to as pseudo-science since a hypothesis has been presented and experiments are performed. However, when the experiments are implemented, they begin with the assumption that their hypothesis is factual, then interpret everything they study in accordance with it. They go further (or dig deeper into the lie) as to redefine terms, and/or make-up additional terms, in an attempt to explain away any evidence that is inconsistent with their assumptions, or to make it align with their presuppositions. For example, evolutionists propose that the presence of endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) in human genomes is the STRONGEST evidence for evolution that we have today. They assert that the presence of specific coding sequences which resemble the structure of exogenous retroviruses that are found in the same locations of primate genomes, is evidence of common ancestry to all primates. In other words, they believe that a common ancestor of all primates was infected with an exogeneous retrovirus that inserted its genetic material into the germline genome (which alone is an absurd assumption that I will address in a later article) of its host. We now see that several of these ERVs encode proteins that are integral for survival, even as essential as the ability to reproduce. Instead of accepting that all primates were created with these gene sequences, they use the made-up term of co-option, to say that the formally inert (or infectious) virus, somehow “co-opted” a critical function over time. Clearly, an attempt to make the evidence align with their presupposition. It is like they are playing the shell game, where you think you found the ball (analogous to inconsistent evidence with their “theory”), and they just shuffle the shells more, to avoid getting caught in their fraud. I would argue that the creationist interpretation is the most reasonable conclusion to ERVs. As I already mentioned, I will delve into why in a later article, but for now it is fair to conclude that their “theory” is biased, and therefore ultimately unscientific. Science is repeatable, evolution is not. Science is observable, the core concept of evolution is not. Science is not biased, evolution is.

     Now that we have concluded that evolution has never been observed based on the first definition we discussed, let’s take a look at a definition of evolution from a source other than the Oxford Dictionary. According to “The Nature Education” website, evolution is defined as ‘the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.’ Has this been observed? It has. For example, in Africa, more elephants are now growing shorter tusks, because those with longer tusks have been poached for their ivory. According to the evolutionary “theory,” this is an example of genetic drift via a population bottleneck, which is one of the proposed mechanisms of evolution. We see that this particular definition of evolution can be stated as fact, while that provided by the Oxford Dictionary cannot. It is ultimately deceptive to have variable definitions of evolution, with one being factual and another being an assumption. Consider that when someone states that evolution is fact, they can present the latter definition, while simultaneously implying that the former definition has been the outcome of it. It’s similar to a bait and switch. This way, they are claiming that what we have verified and observed, is definitive evidence for that which is unverifiable and unobservable.

     Let’s refer back to the example of the elephants. We can all agree that the elephants are clearly still elephants. The evolutionist would look at this information, ASSUME that the population with the shorter tusks will somehow be more fit (i.e., more capable of surviving and reproducing) in another (non-existing) hypothetical environment. They then will further ASSUME that an accumulation of such insignificant events, along with random mutations in the elephant’s genome, over deep time (millions of years) will eventually lead to the elephants with shorter tusks becoming reproductively isolated from the original population. In doing so the elephant will undergo ‘speciation’. Yet speciation has never been observed! As you can see, the “theory” is saturated with assumption, on top of assumption. They go on to further ASSUME that an accumulation of such changes has been the primary driving force that has led to all life forms being descendant from a single-celled organism, namely LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor; which has never been actually identified by the way).

     It should be clear by now why evolution is a deceptive concept, but it gets worse! When I state that speciation has never been observed, I must also specify which one of the various definitions of species I am ascribing to. The most commonly accepted definition of species is referred to as the biological species concept, which is defined as “a group of organisms that can successfully interbreed and produce fertile offspring.” This means that if you were to artificially inseminate the egg of a female from one organism, with the sperm of a male from another organism, they would only produce fertile offspring if they both belonged to the same species. Since we have never observed speciation take place, the evolutionary community has been gradually distancing themselves from sticking to a single definition of species. You will never find any consensus about the definition among articles or journals, and the dissension is only getting more profound these days. If they can’t even agree on what a species is, how can they assert that an organism has, or will, ‘speciate’ (diverge into 2 or more, species)?

     To hide further behind the veil of deception, they claim that we have not observed speciation because it took (and will take) millions of years to occur. It does not take much reasoning ability to see that accepting such a statement requires that you put your faith in the unobservability of deep time. There should be no need to practice faith in order to accept something that is claimed to be a science. If we can’t observe evolution in the present, and one claims it to be explaining the unknowable past, without even a single eyewitness, then their position is philosophical, not scientific. Additionally, their truth claim cannot be scientifically established or substantiated since it makes a claim to know history. The concept of origin is inherently historical in nature. In an attempt to hide the deception of the philosophical and historical argument of evolution, you will find that evolution borrows knowledge (and methods of acquiring knowledge) from other scientific fields and uses this information to attempt to infer origin. In doing so, they claim that evolution is science. However, science is a systematically organized body of KNOWLEDGE. One cannot use what we know to ever know the unknowable. On that basis alone, evolution belongs in the art department at schools, not the science department. That said, as a seeker of truth, I opted to give them the benefit of the doubt and sought to analyze the plausibility of speciation.

     Since it is not feasible to discuss speciation without first accepting a definition of species, I will assume the formerly widely accepted definition of the biological species concept. Fruit flies are ideal organisms to study if you want to determine if speciation is plausible. They reproduce thousands of progeny at an alarming rate, and within just two days of their eggs being laid, they are both physically and reproductively mature! Furthermore, they live only 8-15 days! The combination of their short lives, and incredibly fast speed of reproductive maturation, allows us to observe hundreds to thousands of generations of fruit flies in real time! With the average lifespan of a human (Homo sapiens) being 72.6 years, in a quarter million years, 3,444 generations of humans would have lived. Directly applying this concept to the average lifespan of a fruit fly, we could reasonably conclude that 3,444 generations of fruit flies would have lived in 108 years. Scientists have been experimenting with fruit flies since the early 19th century, encouraging them to mutate, while exposing them to a multitude of conditions, yet we have NEVER observed them speciate. We haven’t even seen any fruit fly gain a single beneficial mutation or function. You would think that within the time equivalent to human development over 250,000 years we would see that at least one mutation occurred in the fruit flies that could be linked to at least one characteristic making the fruit fly more “fit” if speciation is a plausible phenomenon. But we have not. In fact, a speciation event would require hundreds, to thousands, to even millions of mutations, that would lead to an organism that looks considerably different than its “common ancestor.” The cumulative effects of these mutations would ultimately need to make the organism more fit, as well. Now we can conclude that the evolutionary hypothesis is not only dishonest to call science, theory and/or fact, but it is also quite frankly, unreasonable to assert.

     Now that we have also fairly concluded that the assumptions and assertions of the evolutionary “theory” are far-fetched, and unreasonable, we must explain what contributes to what we DO OBSERVE. Let’s first address the perceived similarities between species. It is painstakingly obvious that even the simplest life form is incredibly complex, and on that basis alone, it is reasonable to conclude that an astoundingly intelligent common designer created all species. It is simply absurd to conclude that such complexity could result from mistakes like mutations, and random destructive events, like natural disasters. Furthermore, we know that complexity is integrally intertwined with intelligent intervention. We do not look at objects even as simple as plastic bottles and consider if they could naturally evolve from plastic particles over deep time. Yet for some reason evolutionists look at the similarities between species, and ASSUME that simple life forms have evolved to be incredibly more complex, and fit, than their ancestors over time. We see similarities between trucks, cars and motorcycles, but do we assume that trucks evolved from cars, or that cars evolved from motorcycles. We boldly claim to KNOW that all automobiles were designed and created by intelligent minds. We do so without ever seeing a photo of the designer(s), without ever observing the designing process, and without requesting insight about why the designer(s) created them the way they did. To do otherwise would simply be a denial of our common sense. Yet life is astoundingly more complex than anything any man has ever designed or created. To reject the existence of a common designer as being the originator of various life forms would simply be a more egregious denial of our common sense. We can confidently conclude that it is incredibly more reasonable to assert that a common designer (namely God) is behind the existence of all the various life forms that possess similarities.

     How do we explain the variations that arise within a species, and the speed in which these variations arise? This observation can be directly attributed to a number of observable and clearly designed processes. One of these processes is known as Meiosis. Meiosis includes two rounds of cell division that occurs in the germline cells (sex cells, i.e., sperm/ova) of sexually reproducing eukaryotic organisms (whose cells possess a well-defined nucleus, with other internal membrane-bound organelles). The process of meiosis results in a unique variety of gametes (aka sperm/egg), each possessing a different combination of alleles (alternatives forms of a gene found at the same location on a chromosome). Millions of cells undergo this process, which means that millions of unique gametes are formed from it.

     To better understand how these gametes form it helps to follow the steps of the first round of meiotic division. After each chromosome multiplies and forms an exact copy of itself (referred to as a sister chromatid, attached to its copy by a structure called a centromere), homologous chromosomes (i.e. maternal and paternal chromosomes) form a tetrad (each homologous chromosome along with its sister chromatid attach). In this tetrad, genetic information is exchanged between homologous chromosomes (again between maternal and paternal DNA). This ‘crossing-over’ event results in an exchange of information that is not predictable in location, or amount of exchange. It happens in a random pattern, but it always happens. After this, the homologous chromosomes align in a random order along the equatorial plate (plane midway between the poles of a dividing cell -essentially the center of the cell). In this manner maternal DNA can be on the same side as paternal DNA. This process is referred to as ‘random assortment’ and allows for both maternal and paternal DNA to be in each resulting gamete. Since there was an exchange of information during tetrad formation, and both maternal and paternal DNA can end up in the same cell, the resulting gametes are all unique in their genetic composition (mixture). This is the reason why some children have features from both parents, why some may resemble one parent completely (doppelganger), and even why some children don’t bear any resemblance to their parents at all. It is this self-evident, but astonishingly complicated process, that God created germline cells to undergo, that has led to the phenotypic (physical) variations we observe in humanity, and many other organisms! Just because we see people with black hair or blonde hair, curly hair or straight hair, tall stature or short stature, light-skin or dark-skin etc., it does not mean they are different species! Yet you will see evolutionists categorize organisms as distinct species based on things as insignificant as location!

     Meiosis is not the only process that influences phenotypic variability, however. There are also a number of factors that impact how ones DNA is expressed phenotypically. There are epigenetic factors, which are proteins present outside the genetic code that influence the expression of DNA. The prefix “epi” means “on top of” or “in addition to”, while “genetic” clearly refers to the genome. So epigenetic factors are factors that contribute to phenotype, but are not directly attributable to the traditional genetic basis for inheritance. We also observe variable expressivity, in which the same given genotype can show different degrees of an observed phenotype. Again, if the same sequence of nucleotides in an allele can manifest different phenotypically, such variable expressivity is further evidence that it does not make sense to conclude that mutations have been the primary mechanism that has led to the wide variety of phenotypes. Additionally, there is incomplete penetrance of the genetic code. In other words, the same given genotype will not always present with the same expected phenotype. Again, this shows that genotype is not the sole influencer of phenotype, as assumed by the evolutionary theory. All these influential factors that I have mentioned can be reasonably attributed to how God created us. He created us with these complex functions and mechanisms that show us the magnitude of his abilities, and the complexity of His handiwork, while simultaneously showing us the value in ethnic diversity, through the expression of His creative touch. Leaving us in awe of what He designed. Even with all our intelligence combined, and all the technology we have access to, we have not even come close to understanding His creation. Yet another reason why I choose to acknowledge His hand in all of creation, and give Him all the glory for it.
​
     I have provided you with several reasons why I reject the evolutionary “theory”, as well as some of the reasons why I accept that God created us. While I could have shared more, I wanted to focus more on concepts, rather than details in my introduction. As I continue to write with the intention of sharing the truth with whomever is seeking it, one of the many things I will discuss are the variable forms of information proposed as evidence for evolution, and why they cannot be trusted. This will include a detailed analysis of the information I have presented in this article. I will also discuss the proposed mechanisms of the evolutionary hypothesis, and why evolutionists strongly rely on faith to explain reality. If you are sincerely seeking THE truth, and are not convinced by my arguments, or are a parent or student with questions that you would like addressed, please reach out to me and I would be happy to provide you with answers. As I mentioned in my introduction, if you are a skeptic, or proponent of evolution, I am willing to look into any information you believe is solid evidence for the evolutionary “theory”, or that you believe is contrary to what I have presented. For the last few months, I have been consistent in leaving my position open to critique, and have yet to be presented with any articles or reasoning that has even come close to substantiating evolution. I pray that my arguments either brought you closer to accepting the truth of Christ, or helped to further establish your trust in Him. You will all be in my prayers. Until next time, God bless!