Simple Objections to Evolution
The idea of common descent and transmutation of species has existed for thousands of years. However, it was not until Charles Darwin published ‘The Origin of Species’ in 1859 during the Industrial Revolution that the theory of evolutionary biology was widely accepted. But as desperately as humans wanted to believe that they had created themselves, especially in light of their many recent technological advances, the theory of evolution failed to provide a reliable alternative to God.
Many Bible-spouting or otherwise anti-evolution fanatics like to call upon things like Noah’s flood or miracles they’ve heard about in the Himalayas to reaffirm their disbelief in a self-created universe. But on a more universal level, it would seem that proving the unique nature of mankind as a species is more than sufficient to challenge the notion of a ‘rise of complexity.’ That is, if man can be shown to have enough unique qualities that could not be the result of sequential evolution, the theory fails.
Reason: There are no ‘less-developed’ versions of human reason in other species. Whereas a vulture might instinctively circle lower in the sky in the face of an impending storm, mankind reasonably expects the same storm because the winter season is upon him. Furthermore, although the idea of natural selection is valid, Darwin himself recognized that it could not explain the vast quantities of non-sequential instincts in the animal kingdom, calling it the ‘one special difficulty, which at first appeared to me insuperable, and actually fatal to the whole theory.’
Morality: Mankind has a universal sense of right and wrong, unique among the species. I’ve yet to hear of a lion kicked out of his pride for murdering an innocent gazelle, or a daffodil on trial for rape because his pollen got up into something it wasn’t supposed to.
Music and art: The drive to beautify and reflect on the elements of life is undeniably a non-sequential quality. Creative genius and aesthetic attractions cannot spontaneously emerge.
Language: Not only does mankind have a special brain capability that caters specifically to spoken language, but the human mouth, lips, tongue and larynx are perfectly suited to play along, with no sign of such harmony anywhere in sight for other species.
Females: Although debatable, humans are the only species in which the females are more physically attractive than the males – the sole exception being, perhaps, Stephen Colbert.
Domination: The natural world would exist in perfect harmony without mankind. We are the only species that regularly contributes irreversible destruction and damage to the Earth because we are the only species capable of committing evil. Our welfare is inherently dependent on dominating all other species.
Ideology: Perhaps related to our sense of morality. I’m not sure, but it seems like we are the only species that premeditatedly kills each other for next to no reason. Or perhaps it’s because of too much reason. In any case, I’m still waiting to meet a communist dolphin.
Sex: Humans are the only species that has sex in private, face to face and on a regular basis just for fun. The Postal Service addresses this in their song ‘Such Great Heights’: ‘I am thinking it’s a sign that the freckles in our eyes are mirror images, and when we kiss, they’re perfectly aligned. And I have to speculate that God himself did make us into corresponding shapes, like puzzle pieces from the clay.’ On a side note, we are the only species that wears clothes and shoes.
A few other interesting points:
Interdependence: All species rely on each other to survive. If the Earth as we know it is the result of millions of chance circumstances, it sure turned out well.
Mutation: Only negative mutations have ever been observed in any species. Never has a physical mutation aided a species, let alone resulted in future beneficial qualities.
Time: According to the theory of evolution, it took millions of years for mankind to figure out how to cultivate, hunt, invent the wheel, etc., and yet, in the last few hundred years alone, we’ve discovered the steam engine, the car, electricity, the computer and the safety pin? You’ve got to be kidding me.
Signs of age: Evolutionists repeatedly ask why, if the Earth did not evolve, along with the life upon it, for millions of years, does it appear by measurements and patterns to be so old? The simple answer lies, perhaps, in the age-old understanding of the union of form and function. Not only is the Earth more beautiful because of its signs of age, but it is also more efficient. Indeed, without mountains and valleys and millions of species, the vast ecosystem we know to be Earth, the perfect equation for life in complete equilibrium, would be beyond impossible.
Original life: For life to have arisen by chance, amino acids would have needed to first come together spontaneously into perfect chains to create proteins (the average protein being 400 amino acids long), which then would have needed to combine with DNA, etc. to create living organisms. The problem is that peptide bonds are needed for amino acids to combine. Life could not have originated in water because it breaks peptide bonds apart. Life could not have originated on land because the oxygen-rich environment breaks peptide bonds apart. But maybe billions of years ago, there was no oxygen on Earth. No oxygen means no ozone layer. Ultraviolet radiation from the sun breaks peptide bonds apart, too.
Physics: The First Law of Thermodynamics states the conservation of energy. Did this universe come from nothing? Only a supernatural creation can explain this law.