The Institute for Creation Research

Some claim that evolution is unbiblical and unscientific. Others claim that science proves evolution. Which view is right? Four clear observations show why evolution—which asserts that fish became fishermen by nature’s provision of new biological information—is utterly unscientific.

1. Fossils do not show evolution.

Many undisputed fossil lineups should show transitions between the unrelated creatures that evolutionists insist share common ancestry. But the few fossil forms claimed by some evolutionists to represent transitions between basic kinds are disputed by other evolutionists on scientific grounds.¹

2. Living creatures do not evolve between kinds.

Experiments designed to detect evolution should have caught a glimpse by now, but they have not. When researchers simulated fruit fly evolution by systematically altering each portion of fruit fly DNA, they found only three resulting fruit fly categories, published in 1980: normal, mutant, or dead.² A 2010 study found no net fruit fly evolution after 600 generations.³ Similarly, microbiologists watched 40,000 generations of E. coli bacteria become normal, mutant, or dead.⁴ None truly evolved.⁵

Big-picture evolution did not happen in the past, and it is not happening now. Other evidence excludes evolution from real science.

3. Genetic entropy rules out evolution.

Population geneticists count and describe genetic mutations over many generations in creatures like plants and people. Mutations are copying errors in the coded information carried by cells. The overwhelming majority of mutations have almost no effect on the body. Also, far more of these nearly neutral mutations slightly garble genetic information than any others that might construct new and useful information.⁶ Therefore, many more slightly harmful mutations accumulate than any other kind of mutation—a process called “genetic entropy.” Each individual carries his own mutations, plus those inherited from all prior generations.

Cells are left to interpret the damaged information like scholars who try to reconstruct text from tattered ancient scrolls. Ultimately, too little information remains, resulting in cell death and eventually extinction. Genetic entropy refutes evolution by ensuring that information is constantly garbled and by limiting the total generations to far fewer than evolutionary history requires.

4. All-or-nothing vital features refute evolution.

Finally, transitioning between basic kinds is not possible because it would disable vital creature features. For example, the reptile two-way lung could not morph into a bird’s unique one-way lung. The reptile lung would have to stop breathing while it waited for evolution to either construct or transfer function to the new bones, air sacs, and parabronchi required by the new bird system.⁷ Such a creature would suffocate in minutes, ending its evolution.

Similarly, to transition from an amphibian’s three-chambered heart to a mammal’s four-chambered heart would require either a new internal heart wall that would block vital blood flow, or new heart vessels that would fatally disrupt the amphibian’s vital blood flow.

These four observations show why the unbiblical evolutionary idea that creatures change without limits is unscientific. If creatures evolved through nature—and not God—then Scripture is not trustworthy, since from beginning to end it credits God as Creator.⁸ But science clearly confirms the Genesis creation account.

References

1. See the appendix in Morris, J. and F. Sherwin. 2009. The Fossil Record. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research.
2. Nüsslein-Volhard, C. and E. Wieschaus. 1980. Mutations affecting segment number and polarity in Drosophila. Nature. 287 (5785): 795-801.
3. Burke, M. K. et al. 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature. 467 (7315): 587-590.
4. Barrick, J. E. et al. 2009. Genome evolution and adaptation in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. Nature. 461 (7268): 1243- 1247.
5. Some bacteria began to access citrate for food. However, the new function probably resulted from loss-of-information mutations. See Behe, M. J. 2010. Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution.” The Quarterly Review of Biology. 85 (4): 419-445.
6. Sanford, J. 2008. Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome. Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications.
7. Thomas, B. Do New Dinosaur Finger Bones Solve a Bird Wing Problem? ICR News. Posted on icr.org July 9, 2009, accessed March 9, 2012.
8. See Genesis 1, Jeremiah 27:5, and Revelation 4:11.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Cite this article: Thomas, B. 2012. Four Scientific Reasons That Refute Evolution. Acts & Facts. 41 (5): 17.