The question of Man's origin is one of the most frequently debated, fundamental topics in science. On one side, the Creationists argue for their theory of the Universe's creation by an all-powerful, righteous, and holy God. On the other end of the spectrum, the theory of Evolution, or Darwinism, works through Naturalist worldviews, such as Secular Humanism and Marxism, assert that the Universe was formed by blind chance and nonliving forces. While Darwinist thinkers often say that Evolution is a more "scientific" method than the Creationist position, in reality, faith is required to adhere to either of these proposed explanations. In fact, evolutionary thinking takes much more faith to believe in it than does Christianity. For example, its originator, Charles Darwin, formed this theory based off of his one trip to the Galapagos Islands--he did not return on any other trips to substantiate his claims. Specifically, his "example" of evolution, the difference in Galapagos finches' beak sizes, is also false because their beak sizes only change temporarily--they oscillate back and forth. Furthermore, evolutionists' other "evidence", such as Haeckel's drawings and fossils of "transitional forms", have been proven to be falsified. Therefore, even the history of the naturalistic explanation for life shows it to be incorrect. For example, the experiments of Redi and Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation--the idea that life can come from non-life. Yet, the evolutionary idea of the first spark of life coming from a primordial soup advocates this ludicrous notion. There are three other significant problems with holding a naturalistic/Darwinian view of biological life. They are most known biological mutations, the geological/fossil record, and physics. Together, these three problems, along with others, bring the creative powers of God to the forefront of science--not those of hydrogen.
Most, if not all, of the genetic mutations observed up to the present have not been helpful to the organism within which they occur, as Darwin proposed. In the film Icons of Evolution, some genetic mutations originally cited as helpful in the process of evolution have actually been proven to hurt organisms more than help them. Take, for example, the four-winged fruit fly. At first, four wings may sound desirable (the fly can increase energy efficiency by distributing energy to all four wings instead of just two, it can go faster, change direction, etc.). In reality, these flies can only survive in a laboratory. No other fruit flies will mate with them, and their extra wings are not connected to any underlying muscles; they are useless and cripple the flies. Another genetic mutation that has been shown to be detrimental is antibiotic-resistant bacteria. When these supposedly "superior" immune bacteria are re-introduced to their "non-immune" parent bacteria, they disappear. The mutant bacteria are no better at surviving than normal bacteria--in fact, in becoming immune to antibiotics, they seem to forfeit all of their other basic survival abilities. This is almost like a backwards version of evolution, in which the costs of genetic mutations far outweigh the benefits (Darwin's theories on natural selection state that Nature stores up good mutations and ousts the bad ones). Another biological example that refutes Darwin is the complexity of the design of a cell and its inner organelles. Darwin himself stated that his theory would crumble if the cell were shown to be something beyond a near-useless piece of protoplasm. If he only knew the perplexity behind the cell and its DNA's job, naturalistic views of life would not exist today. Simply put, Nature abhors the "freak"; therefore, the mutations that characterize evolution technically prepare it for termination.
The second problem facing evolution is its lack of support in the geological/fossil record. For years, evolutionists have claimed that as organisms evolved over time, there should be transitional organisms that exhibit such changes on the road to becoming a new species. However, none of these transitional forms have been discovered. Occasionally, naturalist archaeologists will claim to have found these forms, but these fossils have been consistently proven to be fakes. The holes that the fossil record exposes in evolutionary theory cuts down the evolutionary "tree of life" by depriving it of any transitional branches.
The third problem facing evolution is the realm of physics, specifically the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law affirms the progress of the Universe from order to chaos (i.e. Heat Death). A simpler example is if one were to leave a cell phone out on a bench in the middle of a park. The phone will not reappear in the future with an upgrade--it will be ravaged by the weather, wild animals, or even careless children. Essentially, the phone will fall from a state of order (functional technology) to chaos (a soaked, pulverized, nonfunctional combination of metal and wires). Evolution, however, holds the formation of the planet as an exact opposite of the Second Law and its Chaos Theory. In fact, such naturalistic views hold that the universe was formed in a gigantic spacial explosion, and formed conditions for life all by accident. Earth was formed from chaos (the Big Bang) from out of a barren Universe, and proceeded towards order (Earth's eventual accommodation of life). These facts deal the final blow to any air of intellect that evolutionists try to bring to a naturalistic view of biology and life's origin.
Biology, geology/the fossil record, and even physics work with other forms of logic and intellect to disarm every claim evolution makes. Biology uses the function of the genetic importance of living cells in an organism to discredit evolution, literally sucking the life and credibility out of evolution. Geology, through the fossil record, literally sets the impossibility of evolution in stone. Thirdly, physics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics accelerate naturalistic principles of life towards the destination of chaos and destruction. Swallowing a naturalistic, Darwinian view of biology condemns a person to a meaningless life and confines him or her to his or her own body. A naturalistic explanation for life allows no higher spiritual calling or explanation for the rational power of the mind, and humans are relegated to the status of mere animals. However, acknowledging God's creative power and ownership of the Universe leads to true knowledge of how life began and how it will end. Only He possesses the answers to science's questions, no matter how difficult they seem; unlike Darwinism, He does not contradict Himself, either.
