Theoretical physicist and science popularizer Michio Kaku said,
Real operational science is testable, reproducible and falsifiable. Which of course excludes Darwinian evolution, since it is neither testable, reproducible nor falsifiable - at least it can't be falsified to the satisfaction of Darwinists. Nevertheless in the scientific spirit of inquiry it is good to examine what many believe to be the "science" of evolution. Creation.com and The Question Evolution Project have established February 12 - Darwin's birthday - as Question Evolution Day. A day to inquire about and question a theory many erroneously think has been established as a "fact" due to the incessant cheerleading by its advocates.
Creation Ministries International has published an excellent article titled "15 Questions for Evolutionists" that covers well many of the unanswered challenges to evolutionary theory. Also for your consideration: a few years back Buzzfeed did a "listicle" featuring creationists asking questions that are either problematic for evolution or supportive of creation. The questions sought to expose a problem with evolutionary theory, but were asked in a manner that made them easy to refute, so I wrote an article to fine tune the questions called "Refining the Questions for Question Evolution day." It's in the spirit of these articles that I offer a few more questions (and challenges to evolutionists) for Question Evolution Day.
More Questions for Question Evolution Day
Question: Why do evolutionists
tell stories instead of make predictions?
Such testing and limiting is not possible with evolution. Not only can you not test it, or model it, you can't even limit it. Evolution can explain virtually anything the evolutionists want it to - limited only by their imagination. The more honest among them admit that evolution has no predictive power. Speaking of Darwin's theory of evolution, Professor Armand Marie Leroi admits:
And in his very next sentence he explains why that is the case:
What Leroi has unwittingly admitted is that evolution is not an operational science. It is a historical science. It seeks to explain things in the past. Therefore it cannot, and does not carry the same level of certainty or authority as other testable, verifiable and falsifiable sciences such as physics or chemistry. Many evolutionists chafe at descriptions by creationists such as Ken Ham when they correctly distinguish between operational sciences and historical sciences. Such don't like the distinction because they want evolution to appear to be as certain, as reliable as hard sciences like physics or chemistry. But it simply is not, and by its nature will never be. Anyone trying to tell you differently is trying to pull a fast one on you.
They're trying to make evolution seem more certain and accepted than it is. But the facts are simple: Darwinian evolution is not "testable, reproducible, and falsifiable." That's why they don't make predictions. And that's also why it does not carry the certainty of operational science many would like you to believe that it has. Evolutionists cannot make accurate models or predictions. So they do the only thing left for them to do: tell stories. My advice to you: beware the scientist bearing un-provable just-so stories instead of verifiable theories and reproducible results.
Question: Why do evolutionists use the language of design when speaking of evolutionary processes since they deny any design is involved?
Evolutionist firmly insist: there is no design or purpose, no goal involved in the evolutionary process. That's not my conclusion, that's what the evolutionists themselves say. Let me remind you of what the evolutionists themselves say. From atheist evangelist Richard Dawkins:
"Efficient Design?" What are you talking about? Design is never involved in evolution. Or consider this one - the supposed evolution of compound eyes:
"Blue prints"? As in what a designer would produce with a purpose? A plan whose purpose is to achieve a specific outcome? Not in Darwinian evolution - those aren't allowed. Or consider this about the eyes:
Why are these evolutionists talking
about "design" and "blue prints" and most amazingly - the brain doing
trigonometry?! Trigonometry? The non-material, mathematical set
of ideas - that trigonometry? How does materialistic evolution operate
on those non-material concepts?
How does non-goal oriented evolution decide to put that non-material
ability into the brain? How do random material mutations -
accidents - accurately encode the very specific principles, properties
and benefits of trigonometry into the brain? Evolutionists have no
answer to this. All they can give you are more just-so stories.
You see right here with anatomy in action in the living animal one of the most elegant and most efficient strokes of luck that is present in any living vertebrate...
Not very scientific, is it? Continued use of words such as "stroke of luck" would expose evolution for what it is. A collection of silly just-so stories. You don't have to be a modern scientist to be overcome with the overwhelming sense of design in living creatures, particularly in humans. That's why even thousands of years ago the psalmist can exclaim:
The language of design is regularly used by evolutionists because the impression of design is obvious and overwhelming. and the use of words of chance or luck would look foolish and unscientific (which they are).
Question: How do evolutionists explain vision capable of the extraction of 3D information from 2D images - without a designer, purpose or goal to do so?
This talk of binocular vision in order to gain depth perception got me to thinking. How do evolutionists explain the process that brought about the ability to see one coherent 3D image from two different 2D images? Remember, you cannot invoke a designer, or a sophisticated algorithm to achieve that goal. Indeed, you cannot even have a goal. All you have - in the case of a creature are 2, two dimensional images of the same scene, seen from a couple of inches apart. How do you turn those two 2D images into 1 - 3D image? Remember - no design, no formulas, no programs, no algorithms, no goal and no purposes allowed. All you have to work with is random mutations and "selection pressures". That's what the evolutionists insist. Also remember - since there are no goals, there can be no selection pressures on intermediate steps that do not produce a beneficial outcome. So if it takes a sequence of a thousand changes, but you only get the benefit from the last change, then natural selection is unable to select the first 999 changes. Given that, how does the creature ever arrive at the final change? How does the ability come about?
Here's a similar problem. Here is
a link to a
stereogram  that has embedded 3D
information. If you're able to do so, you can extract the 3D info
embedded in the image that will allow you to see the 3D objects hidden
in the image. (I guarantee the 3D info is there, but it requires
binocular vision to see it.) Questions for
evolutionists: Where does the brain get the information, the
mathematical algorithm to extract such images? How does that ability get
encoded into the brain using random processes? Indeed how does that
ability also get encoded into the genes so that the ability to
extract that information is passed to offspring? Remember, no planning,
design or purpose allowed in your explanation.
Many have compared the information in DNA to the digital information stored in computers. This apparently is very threatening to Evolutionists - threatening enough for them to create a false narrative, a straw man argument. The false argument goes like this.
But that's not the point Meyer makes. Meyer's point is that DNA contains coded information. Quoting Watson and Crick, the co-discovers of the double helix structure of DNA, Meyer points out:
So DNA "likely" contains coded information according to discovers Watson and Crick. But we've learned much since the initial discovery of DNA, thus Meyer can conclude:
Again, the point is DNA "contains information" and that information exists in the form of a chemical code. Okay, so now we've got the claim straight. It's not that DNA is a code, the claim that has been substantiated is that DNA contains coded information. Given that fact some obvious questions (the information enigma) are immediately apparent.
Once again the evolutionists have no answers to these questions. All you hear from them is crickets as they say.
Duane Caldwell |February 10, 2019
Kaku, ref. from Good Reads, accessed 2/3/2019,
random dot stereogram was used in the article
Can you find what you Deny Exists? Three Guarantees
to make a point about certain things not happening unless
there is a purpose to do so. Purpose (and the mathematical
algorithm to do so) is also required to extract the 3D
information from the stereogram - and neither purpose nor
math are allowed to evolutionists.
Lockerby, "DNA: When is a code not a code?", Science 2.0,
July 6, 2009,