home -> spirituality -> astrophysics and evolution

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.

See the problem?

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