Although I’m a science teacher, I don’t believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution. Consider these two arguments against evolution.
Why is it I do not believe that the physical universe started on its own and developed on its own into what it is today? What compelling evidence leads me to question evolutionary theory?
Why do I believe in a Designer or Creator—an intelligent being who designed, made and sustains an entire universe?
Actually, I have many reasons why I believe the physical realm is not a result of happenstance, but is the careful design of a Creator. Here are two arguments against evolution.
Argument against evolution #1: the laws that govern nature
First, take a look at the world around us and you’ll find many natural laws governing the behavior of the processes that make our world function—the laws of gravity, thermodynamics and motion, just to mention a few.
Consider the law of gravity—the attraction between two pieces of matter. It is the force that keeps us glued to this earth, keeps the moon in orbit around the earth, and keeps all the planets in our solar system revolving around the sun.
Where did gravity come from? Did it just appear at some point? How did matter know it should be attracted to other matter? These questions remain scientifically unanswerable.
Certainly no one believes that Isaac Newton created gravity, nor should we believe he discovered it. Gravity obviously existed long before Newton was born. All he did was provide a scientific explanation for his observations.
Today, over 300 years removed from Isaac Newton’s original explanation, scientists still search for an understanding of the force we call gravity. Some believe gravity is the result of a particle; others believe gravity is a property of matter or a wrinkle in the space-time continuum.
Bottom line? Science is unsure of where gravity came from, when it began and what it is composed of.
What we do know from our human experience, however, is that things do not simply come into existence on their own. So why should we believe gravity, or any other natural law, for that matter, just somehow happened—appeared on its own out of nowhere?
I—and, as a matter of fact, many other scientists—don’t believe these laws developed on their own. It just doesn’t make sense.
Why should we believe gravity, or any other natural law, for that matter, just somehow happened—appeared on its own out of nowhere?
Interestingly, all scientists call these natural forces “laws,” and indeed they are consistent rules that govern all things that exist. Even more interesting, a source long predating Isaac Newton tells us where gravity and all the other laws of nature came from! That source is the Bible.
James 4:12 tells us, “There is one Lawgiver.” That Lawgiver is the Creator God who designed and made the universe and this planet we call earth.
In doing so, He created the rules that control it, both the physical laws governing the behavior of creation and the spiritual laws governing the behavior of humanity.
Argument against evolution #2: the complexity of nature
Mankind has a long and fascinating history of attempting to comprehend and probe nature’s complexities.
Around 400 B.C. the Greek philosopher Democritus imagined that matter consisted of tiny particles. He called these particles atoms, which in his language basically meant “indivisible,” (atomos, literally, “not cut”).
Other Greek philosophers believed atoms came together to form molecules. They also thought atoms and molecules had mass or weight. It turns out they were far ahead of their time. Sad to say, other mistaken philosophical ideas gained precedence over these notions, suppressing for hundreds of years the concept of atoms.
It wasn’t until the 16th century that the belief in atoms saw a revival. By the beginning of the 19th century, scientists were conducting experiments resulting in conclusions explainable only by the presence of atoms. Experimental data gave proof of the atom’s existence.
During the next 100 years, scientists thought the atom to be the indivisible building block of matter, believing nothing existed smaller than the atom.
But then came the discovery of radioactivity near the start of the 20th century. Radioactivity is the decay or breakdown of an atom through the emission of particles and/or energy from its nucleus.
Around the same time electrons and protons were discovered. Electrons, neutrons and protons were shown to be the particles emitted from an atom during radioactive decay.
So the atom was not the smallest piece of matter after all!
Scientists proposed simple models of the atom; but as research continued, their models became increasingly complex. Positioning the electrons around the nucleus of the atom was no longer as simple, for example, as positioning planets around the sun. It required complex mathematical equations to explain the behavior of electrons and to give their probable positions in space around the nucleus.
As researchers split more and more atoms, they discovered many other types of subatomic particles. Particles known as gluons, believed to hold protons and neutrons together, were identified.
They also uncovered forces holding the nucleus together, which, when broken, release large amounts of energy. Once thought to be particles that could not be broken down further, protons and neutrons were shown to consist of electron-size particles known as quarks.
The more we study the atom, the more we are amazed at its incredible complexity!
The more we study the atom, the more we are amazed at its incredible complexity!
Problems with evolution
After studying all these things, I had to ask myself, How could the remarkably complex structure of the atom have come together on its own? The evidence led me to conclude it had to be designed and assembled.
It’s simply not logical that atoms just somehow appeared, at some point in time. The atom is too complicated for that to have happened. It had to be made—created.
Yet evolutionary theory wants and expects us to believe atoms and matter came out of nowhere at the time of the initial event—the big bang.
Belief in a Creator requires faith
Belief in a Supreme Being who created all things requires faith. Some may say this is a blind faith. Is it, though?
To me, it takes a blind faith to believe that this physical universe and its laws came about on their own, by happenstance!
Evolution is an unprovable theory—it’s man’s attempt to explain the natural world without a Creator. Unlike atomic theory, for which there is strong evidence, there is no proof that evolution occurred.
Removing God from the picture is nothing new, of course. Carefully note these words written nearly 2,000 years ago:
“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. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. … Who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and who worshiped and served the creature, rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.”
Those are the words of the apostle Paul in Romans 1:21-23 and 25, as he described humanity’s history of refusing to accept God’s Word.
Refusing to accept God as the Creator, humans developed their own ideas—beliefs that undeniably require a blind faith to accept!
What kind of faith does it take, however, to believe that God created all things? In Hebrews 11:1 we read what faith is. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Is it blind because it is not seen, though?
Note how Romans 1:20 describes the evidence for God in His handiwork: “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.”
That is a powerful statement! We can look at what exists and see—clearly understand—the invisible attributes of God!
Proof of God
This is the faith and belief I have. I see things like I’ve described here—the laws governing the universe and the complexity of nature—and I clearly see God’s hand.
I am also, by profession and training, a scientist. And I firmly believe that science, when examined properly, supports the existence and logic of a Creator far more than it supports a theory of the natural world somehow accidentally coming together on its own.
I also see that the existence of a Creator gives meaning and purpose to our existence, something evolution can never provide.
So please do what I have told my students to do: Look carefully at all sides of the question before coming to a conclusion.
If you are willing to give God a chance, He will be happy to give you guidance in your search. You can ask Him to remove the blindness. Once you have studied all aspects of the question with God’s guidance, then come to a decision.
It’s the scientific—and godly—thing to do.