As a former biochemist and rational person, I see lots of problems with evolution. Not the least of which is that many people doubt the biblical narrative because they believe in the myth of Darwinian origins. Here’s a quick brain dump of why I think evolution is probably nonsense.
- In empirical experiments, random mutations never create novel functional proteins and they are unable to correct errors of more than a couple base pairs.
- The high level of information content in DNA, including what were previously considered junk DNA based on the erroneous assumptions of evolution, show that there was an immense intelligence that created the complexity we see, not a random process working against entropy.
- The actual pattern we see is that DNA degrades overtime, it does not improve.
- When phylogenetic trees were done based on morphology there seemed to be greater relatedness based on the assumption that similarity equals relatedness. Now that we have sequenced the genomes of many organisms, we see that they are not related and so now we have to fall back onto convergent evolution.
- The actual pattern we see when we randomly mutate DNA in organisms is that eventually they regress back to a mean, they don’t make the jump to a new organism.
- Because all reality is integrated, all of our disciplines of science and ethics should be integrated. When you try to integrate Darwinism into ethics you logically get social Darwinism, eugenics, and racism. By comparison, when you try to merge creationism with ethics you get valuing life, especially that of human beings, and you do not logically get racism or eugenics, though some have tried to use it for those purposes.
- Darwinism not only poorly incorporates existing data, it is a terrible predictor. Such bogus conclusions as vestigial organs and junk DNA have hindered science, and I don’t see any place where evolutionary theory has helped science or medicine. It works well as a myth of origins for those like Richard Dawkins who needed to be intellectually fulfilled. Methods inferred from creationism such as biomimetics and comparative genetics are much more fruitful and are a natural conclusion based on creationism.
- Evolution also relies on abiogenesis as it starting place, but the Miller-Urey experiments have proven to be a pipe dream and have never been confirmed successfully in the labs.
- Genetic research does show ancestral relatedness within created kinds such as felines or dogs, and this is entirely consistent with the creationist viewpoint.
- The fact that evolutionists rely on other apparent misapprehensions of reality like not seeing the evidence for a global flood in geology, or not having decent answers for finding DNA and tissue in supposedly ancient fossils like dinosaurs, or having to totally rethink evolution every time a new fossil turns up shows us that their overstated confidence is obviously religion and not science, and our doubts are warranted.