Five Problems With the Theory of Evolution

If you’ve ever taken a biology class in a public high school or university in the Western world, you’ve undoubtedly heard the instructor speak of evolution as a given. That’s because the vast majority of scientists have been taught and accept evolution as a fact.

But to do so, they must expand the definition of the word fact. In his article “Theory and the Fact of Evolution,” Ralph W. Lewis, a professor of natural science at Michigan State University, explained this alternate understanding:

“The term fact as commonly applied to such statements signifies not the kind of content in the statements but, rather, the strength of our acceptance of the statements. So, if we are willing to accept a broad definition of fact, biologists are correct in saying that ‘evolution is a fact’” (National Center for Science Education, originally published in 1988).

In other words, it can be referred to as a fact on the basis that it is widely accepted to be true, not because it has been proven to be true.

Some scientists have bucked the trend, making public statements that acknowledge flaws in the theory. Although this short article cannot give an in-depth review of all the issues, it will take a brief look at five problems with the theory of evolution.

Five problems with the theory of evolution

Over the roughly two centuries since Charles Darwin popularized the theory of evolution with his On the Origin of Species, it has gained widespread acceptance in spite of its flaws. Today a small but growing minority of scientists are pointing out the unscientific nature of the theory.

In spite of the way it is widely presented, the theory of evolution cannot be proved by the scientific method. The theory and its tenets:

• Are not observable or reproducible.
• Cannot account for the origin of life.
• Incorrectly assume mutation leads to the rise of beneficial traits.
• Fail to account for the genetic code.
• Cannot account for irreducible complexity in lifeforms.

1. Not observable or reproducible

The theory of evolution cannot claim to be proven by the scientific method. This method is the backbone of empirical science, and it demands testing and experimentation before a hypothesis is accepted.

According to Britannica online, “In a typical application of the scientific method, a researcher develops a hypothesis, tests it through various means, and then modifies the hypothesis on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments.”

Because of the enormous span of time evolutionists say is required for evolution to occur, reproducing and observing it is not possible. To get around this problem, they point to observable microevolution as proof of unobservable macroevolution.

This approach has its own issues. The nature of microevolution is substantially different from that of macroevolution. According to the Understanding Evolution website, maintained by the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP), “Microevolution is simply a change in gene frequency within a population.”

Note that it is not a change in the genes themselves, but in gene frequency. The same website explains that “macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.” This distinction is important.

Within a species, we can see differences such as the coloring of peppered moths in different environments. This is entirely different from the idea that, given enough time, fish can develop lungs, or that reptiles can morph into birds.

“Testing hypotheses and theories,” UCMP’s Understanding Science website asserts, “is at the core of the process of science.”

If a hypothesis cannot be observed or tested, then it should not be treated as scientific fact.

2. Origin of life

In attempting to explain the existence of biological diversity without a Creator God, Darwin avoided addressing the origin of life itself in any detail. His landmark book focuses on changes in life.

The problem is that the theory of evolution begs the question, “How did life begin?”

One well-known proponent of the theory of evolution, Kenneth R. Miller, noted that “the most profound unsolved problem in biology is the origin of life itself” (“Evolution: The Next 200 Years,” New Scientist, Jan. 28, 2009). He admitted this, though he dismissed the idea that the theory of evolution itself is lacking.

Charles Darwin suggested that life “descended from some primordial form.” But evolutionary scientists have been unable to recreate an environment with all the necessary components.

Early experiments in this field, which produced some amino acids from gases exposed to electrical charges, were viewed by evolutionists as a breakthrough in research. However, scientists later realized that their assumptions about the “early atmosphere” had been incorrect. Adjusting their starting point yielded substantially different results.

An article on ScienceandCulture.com explains: “All subsequent experiments conducted with more realistic starting ingredients failed to produce the building blocks of life (amino acids, carbohydrates, nucleotides, and lipids) in significant quantities.”

Not only did these ingredients fail to produce the necessary building blocks of life, they added another “challenge for all such experiments.” The correct combination of gases also “produced other byproducts that would have caused deleterious cross reactions. Such conditions would have prevented any subsequent stages leading to life.”

If there is no origin of life, there can be no evolution.

3. Mutation and resultant traits

Natural selection and mutation are key components of the theory of evolution. In fact, a paper published on the website for the U.S. National Library of Medicine identifies “the mutation-selection process” as “the most fundamental mechanism of evolution” (“The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection With Mutations”).

The idea is that the mutation of genes will create new traits, both good and bad. The life-forms with the good traits will survive, but those with bad traits will die out. This is what evolutionists mean by natural selection.

One glaring problem with this idea is that so-called good mutations are not common. The Understanding Evolution website acknowledges that “beneficial mutations are rare. Most mutations have no effect or a detrimental effect.”

Evolutionary scientists have attempted to observe evolution through a 30-year study of the E. coli bacteria. Because the bacteria reproduce so quickly, by 2014 Richard Lenski had been able to monitor 60,000 generations.

What he claimed to be evidence of evolution, however, is not. Instead, it is the simple matter that “a gene had been turned on under conditions where it was normally turned off” (Scienceand Culture.com).

Scientists involved in this study did witness an “increased load of deleterious mutations” within “mutator lineages” (“Tempo and Mode of Genome Evolution in a 50,000-Generation Experiment”). 

If mutation leads to genetic deterioration, there is no mechanism for evolution.

4. Genetic code

Although DNA was discovered before Darwin died, its significance was not appreciated until well after his death. Science has begun to unravel some of its secrets, but not all.

According to the Jackson Laboratory, a nonprofit biomedical research lab, DNA is like “an instruction manual for making all the proteins that form our bodies and help them thrive.” Our DNA determines everything about our bodies, down to each protein found in them.

A Discovery Institute article highlights the similarity of DNA and human language: “Just as English letters may convey a particular message depending on their arrangement, certain sequences of chemical bases along the spine of a DNA molecule convey precise instructions for building proteins. Thus, the DNA molecule has the same property of ‘sequence specificity’ that characterizes written text and computer code.”

The article explains, “The digital information in DNA and its cellular neighbor RNA is only part of a complex information processing system—an advanced form of nanotechnology that both mirrors and exceeds our own in its complexity, design logic and information storage density.”

The more geneticists learn about DNA, the more complex they are finding it to be. To think that the genetic code is the product of random, undirected forces is not reasonable.

5. Irreducible complexity

Gradualism was an essential aspect of the theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin. Gradualism refers to “the evolution of new species by gradual accumulation of small genetic changes over long periods of time” (Merriam-Webster).

The problem with incremental change is that it cannot account for sophisticated systems within a species, even the seemingly simple building block of life, the cell. A single living cell, for instance, cannot function or replicate itself without a host of components.

A Biblical Science Institute article titled “Irreducible Complexity” notes, “At minimum, a living cell contains DNA, enzymes that duplicate the DNA when the cell divides, enzymes that translate DNA to form mRNA, ribosomes that read the mRNA and synthesize proteins that allow the cell to function, and a cell membrane that holds these things together.”

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.” The article points out that the cell could not function if any of these components is eliminated. The evolutionary premise of gradualism cannot account for such irreducible complexity—with all of the components being perfectly developed and all at the same time.

Michael Behe, a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University, coined the term irreducible complexity to describe this problem for evolution. In a speech he delivered at the Discovery Institute’s God and Culture Conference in 1996, he explained that he used “irreducible complexity” to refer to any “single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning.”

Irreducible complexity is also problematic for the alternative to gradualism known as punctuated equilibrium, which was proposed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in 1972.

This makeover of the theory of evolution, according to Natural History, posits that “species typically remain little changed during most of their geological history, except for rapid events when they may split to give rise to new, distinct species” (“Remembering Stephen Jay Gould”).

Although punctuated equilibrium allows evolutionists to ignore the gaps in the fossil record, it does not allow them to sidestep the issue of irreducible complexity. It’s equally unreasonable to believe that complex systems simply appeared overnight.

Evolutionary theory cannot account for complex systems.

A summary statement from the Bible

The Bible does not directly address the theory of evolution, but it does have something to say about the foolishness of leaving God out of the picture, as the theory of evolution does. The words of the apostle Paul are particularly appropriate:

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened” (Romans 1:20-21).

For more, see our online article “Creation vs. Evolution” and related articles.