Why Evolution Is NOT True—4 Major Flaws Exposed

It’s been called one of the most powerful and influential scientific theories in history: the theory of evolution by natural selection, first published well more than a century ago by Charles Darwin.

And its powerful influence on life—in virtually every realm of understanding—would indeed be hard to overestimate.

But is it true?

Many would respond—Of course! Evolution has been proven true a thousand times over! All the evidence we have says evolution is a fact of nature!

But is the evidence really that solid? Is the theory of evolution really indisputable?

No, it is not. And today, we’ll pull back the curtain on some of the evidence that many evolutionists would prefer you not see.

Join us for this episode of Tomorrow’s World where we will expose some of Evolution’s Dirty Little Secrets.

Welcome to Tomorrow’s World, where we help you understand your world through the pages of the Bible. And our topic today might seem far removed from those pages: the theory of evolution. It is, perhaps, one of the single most influential scientific theories in history—with immeasurable impact on science, philosophy, education, politics, and religion. And we are assured by many that it is undoubtedly true—that no one of any intelligence or education would even dare to question it.

Well, today we will dare to question it. Because while evolution puts up a good front, it has a long list of dirty little secrets that you don’t tend to hear about in your classrooms or television programming. And the more you learn about what evolution has to hide, the more you wonder why so many put faith in an idea that remains unproven. It’s a big topic, and we’ll only scratch the surface today.

Now, before we begin, let’s understand what we mean by “evolution.”

Claiming that life began in a vastly simpler form—similar, perhaps, to a microscopic bacterium—the theory of evolution says that over billions of years, life changed slowly; that the struggle for survival rewarded slight, random variations in the descendants of that life form that gave them an edge, perhaps allowing them to find food faster or reproduce more successfully, and, similarly, punished those descendants whose random adaptations were less favorable for survival.

In this way and through this unintelligent, unguided process, evolution says those microscopic bacteria-like organisms a few billion years ago have been able to turn into the astonishing variety of lifeforms we see today, including us—no divine Designer or Creator necessary.

Not long ago, Sotheby’s, the famous auction house, offered a first edition of Charles Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, published in 1859—the book in which he first published the theory of evolution. Now, at least when I saw it, Sotheby’s recommended estimate for the book was 250 to 300 thousand dollars.

You might think, why so high? It’s just a book! Well, there are numerous factors, but the book’s role in human history is perhaps the greatest. Sotheby’s calls the book “one of the greatest achievements of scientific discovery.” Referring to Darwin’s book, science historian Bern Dibner once wrote, “This, the most important single work in science, brought man to his true place in nature” (Heralds of Science, 1955, p. 92).

High-sounding praise to be sure.

But is it accurate? That depends, of course, on whether the theory is true. If all life as we know it today is the result of nothing but mindless processes, then, yes, Darwin’s book is a towering achievement in human history—a monumental discovery that does, truly, put man in his place as nothing special, nothing remarkable, just a random lifeform on a random planet. And life, it turns out, has no real meaning at all.

Again—if that theory is true.

Of course, many claim it is true—and claim so very loudly! Evolutionary apologist Jerry Coyne writes in his popular book Why Evolution Is True, “Evolution is a fact. And far from casting doubt on Darwinism, the evidence gathered by scientists over the past century and a half supports it completely, showing that evolution happened, and that it happened largely as Darwin proposed, through the workings of natural selection” (2009, pp. xiii–xiv).

Of course, many WANT it to be true. Evolution has become an “escape hatch” for those who want to explain away the beautiful diversity and complexity of life without a Creator.

As famous biologist Richard Dawkins once said, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” (The Blind Watchmaker, 2015, p. 10).

Is he right? Again, only if evolution has been proven true.

And, in fact, it has not.

#tomorrowsworld #twtelecast #Evolution

[vf]

Summary: Evolution does not explain the diversity of life to my satisfaction, therefore, the god-of-the-gaps is the ONLY remaining possibility. Sigh.

[tPararabellum]

"back in my day, evolution wasn't invented"

[hairyreasoner]

You are incorrect right off the bat, immediately after your introduction. The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to say about the origin of life on this planet, but rather the path that it has taken since it began.

[stevenlarkin]

It should be noted that evolution does not eliminate a creator that used evolution as a method.

[dinohall]

Point 1: The part starting around 8:20 where the odds of a protein "forming by chance" were calculated is the best example of your misunderstanding. The odds of a protein forming randomly are useless because proteins don't form randomly. Chemistry is not random, so some states are infinitely more likely than others. As a comparison, the odds of all the carbon atoms in a diamond (which we know forms naturalistically) being in the positions to form a perfectly crystalline structure are even lower than the odds of the protein forming randomly. (A one-carat diamond, with a mass of 0.2 grams, contains over 10 sextillion carbon atoms arranged in an orderly lattice.) But we know that the structure of the diamond lattice is not random, just like we know the bonding and hydrophobicity of amino acids are not random.

[anhtuannest]

Just because you don't understand something does not mean it is not true.

[robinj.]

At College in the mid 1970's, our Biology teacher was very skeptical of Darwinism. Today, such a teacher would be fired immediately!
So sad!

[jackjohnson]

This is proof that science and religion need to be separate completely!

[FrankoChakma]

You need to learn evolution properly 😊

[notone]

EXCELLENT video! God is the ALMIGHTY creator and the ONLY WAY!

[stanvalencia]

STOP IT! You're one of the main reasons why a lot of people remain ignorant.

[MemekingJag]

Isn't it weird that almost all opponents to the theory of evolution by natural selection are also religious, and specifically followers of religions with creation myths in their dogma? Few secular opponents that simply disagree with the science, it's almost like the biggest motivation to the theory's opposition is from pre-existing belief systems and its incompatibility.

[someguy]

Darwin didnt discuss the origin of life, but the origin of speciation. Why do you folks have to lie to support your position?

[danielmartinsson]

"X is complex so it must have been my particular favourite deity" Creationist "logic" 101.

[tonystorcke]

If I just keep mixing these chemicals together I will produce my own man. 😂

[RocketScience]

I don't get his point about it taking 10^27 years for a mutation to produce a different protein. We know that sometimes, a single-nucleotide change in the DNA sequence can result in an entirely new amino-acid chain.

[toma]

They say miracles violate the laws of nature, but it’s a miracle we have those laws in the first place.

[williamloman]

I have no problem in knowing Darwin was wrong. I read the KJ Bible.

[sweeper]

What cracks me up is that the atheists' entire religion is based on one whacky nuts theory of evolution. I call it the Darwin religion.

[CesarClouds]

So, a god created everything out of nothing from nothing with magic? Sure, buddy.