Opposition to Evolution
Since the dawn of humanity, there has been a single question that has perplexed even the greatest of philosophers and scientists. Humans are, by nature, interested in their past. As a result every civilization through out time has sought to find the origin of life, and answered it to meet their needs. Early civilizations taught that there was a group of gods located on a far off mountain at the edge of the earth. These gods were responsible everything, ranging from the rising and setting of the sun to a young man winning a fair maidens hand in marriage.
Civilizations grew more complex and learned more about the world around them. Soon events that were once looked at as magical or supernatural were explained and proven through logic, mathematical reasoning, and the evidence available. In the early to mid nineteenth century a scientist named Charles Darwin proposed a theory that broke the away from the common threads of reasoning that looked to deity or a higher force intervening with humans. Darwin? s proposition was labeled Natural Selection, or more commonly referred to as? the survival of the fittest?. Darwin proposed that living beings evolve, or change, to meet the needs of the environment around them to allow the species to continue surviving if conditions such as the food source changes. Darwin? s theory was expanded later to a larger scale, to proclaim that live has evolved from a hydrogen that was present at the birth of the universe into all living things currently found on Earth.
As with the theories and beliefs of early cultures, Darwin? s?Theory of Evolution? must meet the same requirements in order to be viewed as plausible and believable. If the theory is logically based, mathematically supported, and there is either evidence promoting the theory, or a lack of evidence contrary to the theory it is accepted as a possible theory that explains life? s origins. However, Darwin? s theory fails to meet any of the regulations placed before it.
Logically the concept of a living organism emerging from something that is non-living is challenged greatly from the scientific community. A community that insists life must come from life, just as motion must come from motion. Just as a billiard ball is incapable of rolling without a force being applied, a stone is incapable of give birth to an amoeba. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that left to it? s own devices, that is without interference by something else, any living being will break down into its simplest forms, in direct opposition to the theory of evolution that proposes that living beings will change and gain in complexity over time.
The mathematical opposition is equally hindering to the theory evolution. According to the evolutionary timescale the earth is approximately eight to ten billions of years old, that is the equivalent to 1020 or one hundred quintillion seconds. According to the same theory there are approximately 1080 atoms found in the universe. Even with these astounding numbers, it is highly unlikely to achieve odds such as 1 in 103,000,000 the same odds that a scientist named Edward Huxley estimated to be the odds of a horse evolving, let alone the chances of more complex life such as humans.
The final opposition to the theory of evolution is the lack of supporting physical evidence. One of the best-known ways to learn of animals and life from ancient eras was to uncover fossils and bone material located in what is called the fossil record. The fossil record is a name applied to the layers upon layers of fossils and soil found in the earths crust. Early in the stages of geology, evolutionary theory proposed that the fossils that would be unearthed would be clear evidence for the theory, showing various stages of development from one species to another. Geology continued to grow and the interest in the fossils increased, scientists around the world were certain that this new study would provide the proof needed to prove the validity of Darwin? s theory. The fossils have shown clear separations between the various species, not the blurred distinctions that the? evolutionists? had hoped the fossils would show.
Just as other theories have been subject to rigorous standards in the past, evolution must also be subject to the same testing. Due to the logical fallacies, mathematical impossibilities and the abundance of physical evidence contrary to the theory of evolution it cannot be either plausible, nor believable.