Don Batten and the Creation Ministries International organization, and also 'Cowboy' Bob Sorenson of the Question Evolution Project team up to present 15 questions Darwinists cannot answer. There are more than 15, naturally, but these are killers!
Evolution: the naturalistic origin of life and its diversity(The General Theory of Evolution, as defined by the evolutionist Kerkut, does include the origin of life.)
How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted,
“Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized
themselves into the first living cell.”1
Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really
know how life originated on this planet”.2
A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe
were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular
vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized
functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate
just by chemistry without intelligent design? See: 15
loopholes in the evolutionary theory of the origin of life (Summary).
How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language
system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the
chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is
not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen).
What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How
did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? See: The genetic
information code points to an intelligent source. Video on Question 2
How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’
exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create
the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?
How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change
a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make
proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains
the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without
the other is useless. See: Meta-information: An impossible
conundrum for evolution. Mutations are known for their destructive effects,
including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful.
But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway
or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution
possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces
the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’
delivering parcels inside cells) originate? See:
The evolution train’s a-comin’ (Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction).
Video on Question 3
Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists,
taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of
the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already
existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain
the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in
certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes
and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted
to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain
the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment.
E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin
of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you
evolution? See: Evolutionist Dr John Endler’s refreshing
clarity about ‘natural selection’ has been largely ignored.
Video on Question 4
How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together
in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple
protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the
components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed
sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede
that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any
biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”3 See:
Design in living organisms (motors: ATP synthase) (includes animation).
Video on Question 5
Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know
that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology
is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed
with a purpose.”4
Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists
must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”5 The problem for evolutionists
is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist
says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in
living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science
be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?
the design explanation legitimate?
Video on Question 6
How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to
individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing
programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals? See:
Evolution of multicellularity: what is required?
Video on Question 7
How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as
much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual
reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected?
And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed
at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination
of male and female organs). See:
Argument: Evolution of sex.
Video on Question 8
Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in
textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous
Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The
extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade
secret of paleontology”.6
Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem. See:
That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils.
Video on Question 9
How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds
of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in
the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability
within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”7 See: Living fossils:
a powerful argument for creation.
Video on Question 10
How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose
or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism
(life is meaningless) in science classes? See:
G.K. Chesterton: Darwinism is ‘An attack upon thought itself’.
Video on Question 11
Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?
Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations
contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian
explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans
self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable.
Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except
when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation
is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally,
much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”8 See:
‘Just-so’ stories of sex and family life.
Video on Question 12
Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc
Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated:
“In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent
of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry,
physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, .”It is our knowledge of how
these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen
millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers …"
10 Evolution actually
hinders medical discovery.11
Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing
time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind? See:
Is evolution relevant or helpful to real science?
Video on Question 13
Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how
they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if
it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do
experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has
been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s
just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”12 See:
A valid distinction: origins science versus operational science.
Video on Question 14
Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to
explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper,
famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific
theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”13 Michael Ruse, evolutionist
science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution
in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”14 If “you can’t teach religion in science
classes”, why is evolution taught? See: The
religious nature of evolution, “It’s not
Video on Question 15
|CMI Logo for project|
- Davies, Paul, Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Sydney, New Scientist 179(2403):32, 2003. Return to text.
- Knoll, Andrew H., PBS Nova interview, How Did Life Begin? July 1, 2004. Return to text.
- Harold, Franklin M. (Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University) The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205. Return to text.
- Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, p. 1, 1986. Return to text.
- Crick, F., What mad pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Sloan Foundation Science, London, 1988, p. 138. Return to text.
- Gould, Stephen Jay, Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977. Return to text.
- Gould, S.J. and Eldredge, N., Punctuated equilibrium comes of age. Nature 366:223–224, 1993. Return to text.
- Skell, P.S., Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology, The Scientist 19(16):10, 2005. Return to text.
- As quoted in the Boston Globe, 23 October 2005. Return to text.
- Skell, P.S., The Dangers Of Overselling Evolution; Focusing on Darwin and his theory doesn’t further scientific progress, Forbes magazine, 23 Feb 2009; http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html. Return to text.
- E.g. Krehbel, M., Railroad wants monkey off its back, Creation 16(4):20–22, 1994; creation.com/monkey_back. Return to text.
- pbs.org/now/printable/transcript349_full_print.html>, 3 December, 2004. Return to text.
- Popper, K., Unended Quest, Fontana, Collins, Glasgow, p. 151, 1976. Return to text.
- Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000. Return to text.