Why I Don't believe In Evolution and Why You Shouldn't Either

 

The problem with the theory of evolution on the macro scale is that it has always been inherently at odds with the way science has been traditionally conducted since the beginning. When it comes to science it’s not about certainty it’s about uncertainty. That’s why there is no such thing as ‘proof’ in scientific research which I will go in depth with a little more shortly. In a moment’s notice the evidence pointing in one direction can do a U-turn and start pointing elsewhere the more findings there are being discovered for a certain field of science. 


Which leads me to my next point and that’s when somebody calls a certain theory in science a ‘fact.’ This entails that science has ‘proof’ of a certain scientific theory as being 100% true. Look at the definition of ‘proof’ to get an easy understanding of this. But we know there is no such thing as ‘scientific proof’ in scientific research. These egregiously false statements used by some individuals show their lack of understanding of how science works. So, if somebody were to say the theory of evolution is a ‘fact’ then they are actually incorrect in this context.


If evolution were even science then it needs to adhere to the Scientific Method which I don’t see how it is for 99% of it. First off, can we observe a species that is in the process of changing into another species right now? No. Can evolution be logically contradicted in theory by what we know in nature? This is Falsifiability and no, no one has presented an alternative model to evolution in science at the moment. Can we test through experimentation that evolution can occur where one species transitions into a completely different species? This is Testability and no, it hasn't been done. These are just a very few principles of the scientific method. I won’t even bother going further with Replicability because this requires Testability first and I don’t see how science has ‘tested’ macroevolution to begin with.


For example, can we test human evolution? No. That’s a physical impossibility and which is classified as macroevolution. Can you Falsify human evolution too? Of course not because that would require creating a whole other paradigm for how the human species came to be which is something that has not been done in science as of now. No, instead, the human evolution model is widely accepted in academia today without any challengers to question its authority. 


But one common misconception with the theory of evolution is that you can observe it in the fossil record. Although, those paleontologists that actually study the fossil record for a living have something to say that is quite to the contrary of the traditional Darwinian evolutionary model and have always confirmed my suspicions of the fossil record for a while now. 


This is because paleontologists have long known that the fossil record shows complete stasis in a lot of species with no changes over ‘supposedly’ hundreds of millions of years and already have a modern anatomy to present day species or there are extremely abrupt bursts of changes on the scale of adaptation within some types of species with no slow gradual changes whatsoever. This completely challenges the Darwinian evolutionary model of a slow, gradual process and even Darwin himself knew this in his days! 



Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. Charles Darwin (1859), The Origin of Species, p. 280.



This is not uncommon in the fossil record. Here’s an article substantiating my own opinions of this dilemma. So, when someone points to the fossil record as a way to observe evolution on a grand scale you can simply refer to the plenty of evidence showing quite the contrary in the fossil record instead. Of course, this is an embarrassment for paleontologists and evolutionary biologists so they will not easily admit this reality to your average joe if you were to ask them. It’s all quiet talk secretly admitted among their colleagues and that’s about it, unfortunately. 


But the general populace has a right to hear about what’s going on in the scientific community on these matters. And if scientists are afraid to unveil some news because it contradicts their own personal beliefs about things then this is totally unacceptable and deplorable. This creates the notion that scientists have an agenda on their plate and aim to fulfill it. Sadly, this is a big problem in the scientific community which needs to be addressed swiftly. 


So, no, I do not accept the theory of evolution as truth or a fact because it simply is not. And I do not believe you can call it a ‘fact’ and believe it’s a scientific theory at the same time. A theory is not a fact itself as with any theory in science. Though, the more I look at the physically observable world around me the more I see a very pretty and beautiful creation that I believe could have never been formed by chance but rather was created by an intelligent designer.



Sources


  1. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/proof


  1. https://www.ferrovial.com/en/stem/what-is-the-scientific-method/


  1. Charles Darwin (1859), The Origin of Species, p. 280.


  1. https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/hurry-up-and-wait-pattern-in-the-fossil-record-supports-creation-model



Popular posts from this blog

Debunked: Rebekah Was 3 Years Old When She Married Isaac

Muslims will try very hard to argue for any immoral cases in the Bible to make it look equally as unappealing as their Qur’an so it doesn’t fall to an inferior status. Much like a dysfunctional relationship where you’re the one who’s had enough and wants to let the other go but refuses to let go of you thinking it will still work out. That is the Qur’an to the Bible. The Qur’an wants to share the same status and appreciation as the Bible, but is still unable to rival it to that point. Unfortunately, this is yet another one of those cases where the Qur’an will fall very short of making the Bible look equally unappealing insofar that the Qur’an will look much worse in comparison. It’s the infamous claim about Rebekah’s age of marriage to Isaac which muslims will say was 3. How inaccurate and unsupported by the scriptural evidence this statement is! Here’s why… the Bible does not explicitly say the age of Rebekah when Isaac married her. I will steelman this for the muslims. Muslim arg...
Read more

Sorry, Monkeys Are Not Counting Numbers Like Humans

Image
I love how science likes to glorify the ability of animals and intentionally misleads people into thinking that certain animals such as monkeys can do things like count and do math exactly the way humans do it. This is yet another one of science’s fantasies that wishes it were true and even goes as far as saying it in the titles of some articles related to that specific topic. I’m about to put this false claim to rest for good though as I believe this needs to be addressed. Of course, humans created arithmetic and numbers to keep track of things and to measure things like space and time but these things come from our own human brains and perception of the natural world. Monkeys, obviously, did not create numbers nor any other animals for that matter. When scientists conduct these experimental tests for the mathematical capabilities of these certain animals they are teaching them based on our already perceived understanding of numbers and arithmetic. And a lot of the time, the scien...
Read more