Five Rational Reasons Why Darwin's Evolution is Doubtful

Using Reason Alone One Can Make a Case Against Darwin's Evolution

reasonfaith
Ever since Darwin wrote his "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, people have been in debate about whether his evolutionary theories hold substance. Die-hard creationists point to the Bible for answers, but here are five other logical and rational reasons why people may not accept evolution as fact.

First, survival of the fittest or adaptation does not make sense when one looks at how modern science has utilized breeding programs. Take for example the hundreds of adaptations and breeds of dog. If history is any indicator, the dog evolved from the wolf. So early dogs had long tails, thick fur, long snouts and pointed ears. My Shih Tzu, who is somewhat of a newcomer to the dog genre (a few hundred years) and only brought to the United States within the last 100 years, has a tail which is oddly trained to curl over the back, droopy ears, a very short nose which is flat to the face, and a two-fold coat of hair which does not shed or is curly. He does not bark often and is pretty lame as far as smell and sight go. There is a reason for this, the early Chinese monks who original bred them did so with the intent to make them lap dogs to be held inside the sleeves of their garments. Thus, the no barking/no hair sheding features were encouraged and the skills of smell, sight, dexterity and running ability, were not. This tells me that evolution can be by design, rather than by nature, or created for specific purpose and not simply survival.

Second, scientists today are doing plant and animal DNA recombination in order to enhance food production. This is nothing new, after all God took Adam's rib to create Eve if you accept the Garden of Eden and Genesis story. The point here is that chromosomes can be altered. Science is moving forward to actually identify faulty genes and fix them, either chemically or biologically. Changing the composition of chemicals within the body and brain are the hallmark of pharmaceutical companies and why they can make so much money. As anyone who has ever taken a drug for bone density or cancer, the very essence of science and human intervention make it possible to correct the evolutionary path and even lengthen one's life. So much for survival of the fittest. Perhaps those who can best afford such scientific wonders, not to mention cosmetic surgery and gastro-bypass of the stomach, may really have the edge evolutionary-wise.

Third, our environments most certainly have an influence. After watching the documentaries about green house gasses and Polar caps and car emissions, you would think our species would learn to adapt. Unfortunately, the species simply becomes extinct, never to return again, and that is why so many are growing plants and creating zoological gardens to continue to create whatever species is heading for disaster. There is a reason for Environmental Protection of Species, unfortunately one cannot always monitor or alter the environment. Humans can only do so much to care for endangered species. Also, scientists are discovering new species every day, particularly in the deep ocean, which we never knew existed before. How old or new are they really and where did they come from? If the dinosaur did not make it due to the ice age, why are we now suddenly finding these behemoths?

Fourth, for those who follow Darwin, many do not realize that the infamous Scopes "monkey" trial incorrectly featured in the movie "Inherit the Wind" was lost by the school teacher who taught evolution. It was a pyrrhic victory on behalf of the Creationists, however, since the school teacher ended up paying a miniscule fine to the courts around $100. Die -hard Biblical believers will continue to accept their religious faith regardless of what kind of science is brought to the forefront and perhaps with good reason, many scientific proposals within the Bible have been able to hold truth down through centuries, for example evaporation. Based on sheer numbers and odds, I would say that millions of believers may have something on their side. We have come to a place theologically, where even scientists cannot dismiss the importance of religious belief altogether and have therefore propounded alternative theories as to why we see so much complexity and intelligence in the design of the species which appears to be specific, intentional and even artfully creative.

Fifth, how do we deal with the issue of viruses and bacteria. Even Creationists have to admit that if God is Creator, God created them too. Evolutionists, I believe, may not be able to show good reason for horrible diseases, malformations, the common flu, bacterial meningitis, cancer, and mental illness which simply will not go away. Interestingly, despite vaccinations for childhood diseases such as polio and cholera, they continue to flourish in third-world countries. Hardened pharmaceutical companies blame this on a lack of funds, or even go so far as to blame the patients for not taking their meds, but one has to realize that even if the third-world people owned watches to time the medications, or refrigerators to keep them in, or hot water to sterilize the tools, etc. once they step back into the environment of toxic soil, water and air, not to mention intrusion by their fellows, the chances look slim to none that they will be able to overcome. We must continue to keep trying, however.

Published by reasonfaith

I am a disabled freelance writer and researcher. Reasonfaith is a charitable organization committed to the connection between logic and faith-based belief. Ethics and social justice are the inspiration for...  View profile

28 Comments

Post a Comment
  • Anthony Odom5/31/2011

    "Based on sheer numbers and odds, I would say that millions of believers may have something on their side." How many people does it take to believe something or accept something as true to make it a fact? 10%? 50%? 99.999999998%? How many people would it take to believe that the sun revolves around the earth to make it so?

  • reasonfaith1/10/2011

    Dear Greg: "natural" selection, survival of the fittest and randomness are the quantifiers that I am arguing against in this article. These three also become questionable when one considers cloning. We now know that although genetic material can be duplicated, unfortunately the aged material also passes, giving the cloned a disadvantaged short shelf life. See the information about Dolly the sheep and her offspring. My latest argument over at Helium.com, questions the idea that evolution of a species is a singular event. We know for example that many creatures depend upon a host and that host's determined environment or hospitality - chosen by both and goal oriented.

  • Greg1/9/2011

    These reason don't make any sense at all. Are you mentally disabled? Because we can use genetics and evolution to breed dogs, it means evolution is not real? I hope no one pays you for your articles, that would be criminal. This is a complete failure when it comes to logic and reason. None of the 5 reasons makes any sense. Go ask a high school science teacher. A teachers assistant for that matter. This is pathetic.

  • Adam P12/13/2010

    If you are going to make a rational argument you can't use the theory of creationism or any other superstition as their is NO logic AT ALL behind them. Also your ideas are ridiculous and either show an apparent lack of knowledge concerning the subject or simply an inability to let go of your false beliefs.

  • Richard Block10/6/2010

    These are some of the most nonsensical points that I have ever read about evolution. It is stories like these that always lend me to believe that intellegent life does not exist on our planet.

    From latter to former, viruses and bateria that have become resistant to drugs are perfect examples of evolution it shows the adaptation to it environment.
    And I suggest you spend some time in the 3rd world before making claims about what they own, I have been in Africa, the DRC, the DR and yes illness like polio is present because they lack drugs to fight them.

    Please read Darwin before making your other points, that are no even valid.

  • Robert O. Adair5/23/2010

    Very interesting! Many good points. Significantly, your critics like chiple cannot refute anything you say and resorts to crude insults as though they add anything to this discussion.

  • chipfle12/1/2009

    You clearly have a very bizarre definition of "rational".... and no understanding whatever of evolution or science...But keep lying-for-Jesus, it keeps the collection plate full....

  • Jeff Burnsed11/24/2009

    Please..go read "Evidence Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell and "The Genesis Flood" by Henry Morris. Please ..after you do..comment on each :)

  • Hanks Evans11/18/2009

    Your second point also does not conflict with the premises of evolution and natural selection, and instead supports it.

    Yes, dna and genes are alterable. The fact that they can change whether by pharmaceutical intervention or by mutation leads one to agree that organisms will change to a degree as their dna does. Again, just because genes can be manipulated by human intervention does not mean this is the only way it can happen. Furthermore, think of this scenario. If a terrible disease is killing a population, and only the most wealthy individuals can afford the vaccine to stave off death, they are likely to survive. Yes, wealth is then selected for, but so are traits that lead to accumulation of wealth. Those who are cunning, clever and industrious may be more likely to develop wealth and thus survive rather than those who aren't quite as clever and do not have to resolve to persist in the face of such a situation. In other words, those who can adapt will survive, and those who can

  • Hank Evans11/18/2009

    Just focussing on your first point regarding dog breeding, I'm not sure why you claim selective breeding of dogs (aka artificial selection) and natural selection that occurs in nature have to be mutually exclusive. Because some monks select for specfic traits such as small size, hair that doesn't shed and lack of barking, does this mean that a cold, snowy climate will not select for animals with sufficient insulation and white fur for camoflauge? Of course animals with no fur and perhaps pink skin will not have as good a chance of surviving.
    What your first argument does is establish the point that organisms can and do adapt to selective pressures. Organisms will change based on what is favorable in their current environment. In some cases this pertains to various conditions in wild, and in other cases such as the one you mentioned, this is due to human taste and efforts. Selective pressures come in various forms. Darwin even has a chapter on this in the Origin of Species in which he

Displaying Comments
Next »

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.