Darwin

In Origin of Species, Charles Darwin presents what has become the prevailing world view on how the world became what it is today. He argues that from very simple original organisms, natural and sexual selection and adaptation have created various species that became increasingly acclimated to their environment through survival of the fittest.

First, I should say that I disagree with Darwin's findings. As a creationist and Christian, I disagree not so much because of what I believe false about his theory, but what I believe to be true from other sources. I believe that evolution is simply the most accessible answer that requires us to have no accountability beyond our own existence. Scientifically, the odds that present-day species evolved from single-celled organisms are infinitesimal.

From an admittedly biased source, though supported by the same science that endorses evolution: "One chemist has calculated the immense odds against amino acids ever combining to form the necessary proteins by undirected means. He estimated the probability to be more than 10 to the 67th to 1 (10⁶⁷:1) against even a small protein forming by time and chance, in an ideal mixture of chemicals, in an ideal atmosphere, and given up to 100 billion years (an age 10 to 20 times greater than the supposed age of the Earth). [129] Mathematicians generally agree that, statistically, any odds beyond 1 in 10 to the 50th (1:10⁵⁰) have a zero probability of ever happening (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html)."

Frankly, I don't see how such astronomical odds are so readily accepted. The main problem I see with evolution is that it has no answer for the origin of mass or energy. Without both of these, I don't believe evolution has legs to stand on. Evolutionists have yet to find a viable answer. Many may say that they believe in God, but I would question what type of god would create such a system. When they try to fill in all possible gaps with secular science, they reduce this essential God to one who created the absolute minimum necessities for the eventual development of life. It is an extreme form of deism that doesn't make much sense or seem to agree with many individual philosophies.

The only other evolutionary inconsistency that I have given serious thought to relates to topsoil. According to one of the science teachers at my high school (herself an evolutionist), it takes about 500 years for one inch of soil to become topsoil. A quick calculation using the estimated age of the earth (6000000000/500) yields that, under present conditions, there should be 189 miles of topsoil under your average footstep. Obviously, this would extend far below any existing soil, and, even if the process had just recently begun (say, a million years ago) we would still have 167 feet of topsoil at 1 inch per 500 years. Incidentally, if we make the same calculation over 6000 years (the accepted age of the earth among creationists), the figure comes out to 12 inches of topsoil. I would invite anyone that wants to to conduct an experiment with a shovel to see which figure is closer to reality, taking erosion into account, which will have washed away some evidence. I don't believe you'll break a sweat. If this approach is valid, it would contradict the perceived age of the earth, which would disallow the time needed for Darwin's theory to run its course.

Aside from the scientific side of the issue, an admitted weakness of mine, the debate of evolution in schools is huge. As you may guess, I am very much against the current teaching of evolution as fact. Not only is macro-evolution highly controversial, but the age of the earth is derived from it. Both macro-evolution and the age of the earth are merely theories, hopefully seen to be weak ones at that. Off the top of my head, the only unsolved mystery given so much time in public education is that of the JFK assassination. Of course as new evidence has emerged, teachers have ceased from teaching that Lee Harvey Oswald was the factual sole assassin of JFK. And yet with such disagreement about things of science, we are still fed supposedly factual information. Is it so hard to require that teachers explain the imperfection of the evolutionary theory? I think not.

Again, I am not a scientific person. You may be able to find problems with my points. My views are not formed by my disbelief in evolutionary theory, and they do not hinge on the validity of any objections I've mentioned. I appreciate the respect that is given for views that are not seen as mainstream.