Science versus
The Theory of Evolution
The science of Astro-physics has long failed
to support the popular and persistent theory of evolution as taught by Darwin. So has the
field of archeology. Fossils don't get simpler as we go deeper into the earth and further
into the past. Darwin's theory would have been supported if we did find older and simpler
fossils as we went deeper into the earth and into the earth's past. But that is not the
case.
Also, in the early 1990's, the complexity of the early
dinosaurs became obvious, and the scientists studying them totally redid their theories
and their understanding of the big beasts. But evolution is persistent. We are told that
animals changed, had freaks and the freaks survived. You know, the fins that dad had were
replaced by the son's feet. However, there is a biological problem with this part of the
theory of evolution. Freaks are usually born sterile, and the odds of both male and
female, virile freaks, occurring simultaneously, similarly and in proximity of each other
are so astronomical as to be nearly impossible.
So, to have evolution be possible, one needs to make the
universe very old. You have to have a lot of time to allow things that have such a small
chance of happening to happen. So, the theory of evolution of life needs a very, very old
universe. Which leads to another problem, the one from astro-physics.
If you spin a top that is perfectly balanced, it spins
indefinitely, in a simple, predictable pattern. If you spin one that is out of balance,
it's 'orbital spin' decays. The less perfectly balanced the spinning object, the much
quicker the spin deteriorates. It starts wobbling shortly after being started. The more
off-balance the top, the shorter it can spin. The better designed, or more balanced the
top, the longer it spins. So if you are watching a top spin almost perfectly, either it
just got started, or, if it has been spinning a long time, it is well designed and
balanced.
Currently, there is very little evidence of
'orbital decay' amongst the planets of our solar system. In fact, they are spinning so
predictably that we can launch space craft to visit the nearest ones with tremendous
accuracy. Thus, the planets must have been designed by a brilliant architect AND assembled by
a great engineer and team of fantastic construction workers. If however, they were
randomly assembled, they aren't old enough to have their orbits deteriorate. Our universe,
as we observe it, must have been designed to have the stability it has. Or, it must be
very young. Gee, the physical universe must be young if you want to say it had no
creator/designer. Or, you can say that the physical universe is very old, but it was
perfectly designed. Either way, you fly in the face of the theory of evolution.
For the sake of the next question, let's leave God
out. Let's just look at what science tells us. Do we believe we have an old universe, to
accommodate evolution, or do we have a young universe to accommodate the physical balance
of the astronomical bodies? Whichever way you pick, you haven't found a solution that
answers all the questions. A blended view of Science, or what is called an eclectic view,
tells you that you are wrong, no matter which way you pick! If you consider evolution
scientific, that is. The sciences of astronomy and physics are much older than the theory
of evolution or the science of anthropology. When one science confirms another, then both
have more evidence for their validity. However, when scientific data fails to support a
theory, such as evolution, then one may have to rethink their commitment to that theory.
It may be that the theory needs adjusting to accommodate new knowledge.
on to Math Facts versus Evolution Theory
| |
|
Site
Map
Facebook me!