Global-level frauds are nothing new. Most of the world has actually been living and accepting one for over a century: Darwinian evolution. Using simple logic and common sense, we can see why Darwin’s ideas on mankind’s origins are obviously false and even dangerous.
The idea that human beings (homo sapiens) evolved over time from lesser ape like creatures (and even lesser animals before that) is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetuated. And like the COVID-19 claimed pandemic, so many have simply bought into the claims of “experts” without the least bit of critical analysis or application of common sense. Because evolution is the reason so many Christians have lost their faith and is the source of so many evil political ideologies today, it is necessary to show why evolution is 100% false.
It is also necessary to show the absurdity of evolution at this time because now, more than ever, Western Civilization has lost its Christian foundations and understanding of what it means to be a human person. The title of Charles Darwin’s book The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life pretty much says all you need to know about Darwin’s motivation for peddling his macroevolutionary theory. Yes, that is the full name of the book—odd the modern high school biology textbooks never mention the full title!
Regardless of the title, beyond the intentional establishment of abortion clinics in black neighborhoods, this demonic idea has become so widely accepted to the point that laws are being passed in numerous states permitting euthanasia as if people were dogs at the end of life, while other such monstrosities such as human cloning and the creation of human-monkey embryos are openly supported in the culture.
The treatment of human beings like animals is an outgrowth of the Darwinian evolutionary mindset and that is why it is a key battlefield in today’s culture wars. No one, and certainly no Christian, can or should ever accept Darwin’s theory of evolution—not just because it is overtly racist and logically and scientifically false, but because it is incompatible with Christianity and destructive to a functioning Christian society.
Much more could be said on the theological front, however, I wanted to focus on why evolution is obviously false as a matter of logic and common sense. The problem most Christians have when trying to defend the Word of God against irrational claims of the evolutionists is that the debate gets bogged down into the minutia of both religion and scientific theories and studies. To some degree this is understandable but it often leads to dead ends, especially if the parties are not familiar with key studies and empirical findings.
While empirical data and studies are important, most Christians are unaware of some of the easiest and most obvious arguments when it comes to proving the truth of Biblical special creation against the falsity of Darwin’s evolutionary claims. This article will attempt to show how evolution is obviously false using basic reason, logic and common sense without diving into more detailed scientific and theological arguments. For those more complex arguments, I recommend visiting the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation.
Please note that this article will not deal directly with theistic evolution, an outgrowth of the Modernist heresy within the Church. That will require an article of its own.
Something Cannot Come from Nothing
The first obvious problem with evolution is that it presupposes something comes from nothing, which of course, is impossible. The idea is that humanity evolved over time from lower life forms, which in turn sprung to life from inorganic materials (a primordial slime), which themselves were assembled through the organization of molecules of which ultimately came from the Big Bang some 13 million years ago. Despite all the problems and evidentiary gaps with this claimed progression, it ultimately relies on the idea that something came from nothing. The late famous physicist and atheist Stephen Hawking admitted as such when he claimed “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist[.]”
That something cannot come from nothing is self-evident on its face and needs no explanation. Meaning that the concept defines itself and it is not a conclusion reached from prior principles. It’s like a three-sided triangle—it’s self-evident that triangles must have three sides because that is how triangles are defined. Nothing, by definition, is an absence of something or nonexistence; therefore, nothing by definition cannot be the cause of the matter in the universe since “a cause” is something.
Yet, Hawking is certainly not an idiot. He, along with other physicists, know that at the end of the day their Big Bang cosmology is non-sensical and cannot be possibly true on its face. So, what do the “expert” scientists do to make sure no one dares suggest God created the universe? They make up new theories (stories) like “multi-universes” to account for the obvious logical dead-end they hit when they bring evolution, along with an anti-creation cosmology, to their obvious conclusions. But even then, they still run into the same problem, what caused those preexisting multi-universes to come into existence?
If the cosmos, and with it all the material that make up the universe had a beginning, the only logical conclusion one can reach without needing to know one ounce of specialized astronomy or physics is that an omnipotent and intelligent Being existing outside of space and time must have created the known universe because something cannot come from nothing. And that Being, the Church teaches us, is God.
You Can’t Give What You Don’t Have
Along the same lines as “something cannot come from nothing,” you also cannot give what you do not have. That is, there must be a reason why something exists or is happening. If my car tire keeps going flat within a few minutes after I inflate it, we would say there has to be a reason for it continuing to go flat. Maybe there is a nail in the tire or maybe the tire is not attached to the wheel properly. Whatever the cause, there IS a reason for the tire going flat and that reason must be sufficient to cause the tire to keep going flat. A nail has the potential or power to cause the tire to go flat, while a piece of paper would not be a sufficient reason to cause the flat tire because the paper does not have the potential or power to cause a flat tire.
The concept of macroevolution, that is the development of more advanced or complex species from lesser ones over time, is impossible because lesser forms cannot pass on what they don’t have to create newer and more advanced species. For example, a creature that lacks the possibility of eyesight cannot pass on the possibility of eyesight to another. A fish cannot transmit the ability to walk on land to its progeny. The fish doesn’t possess the “stuff” of walking, the genes or the potential to possibly pass on this ability to another. It’s not logically possible—remember you cannot give what you do not have. Therefore, Darwinian evolution lacks the “sufficient reason” or necessary causes for higher species to develop out of less complex ones—there has to be a reason for our complexity as human beings that does not exist in lower forms of life or inorganic material.
This is true even though the environment may affect an individual creature. Darwinian macroevolution claims that environmental factors (i.e. factors outside the living being itself) cause certain individual members of a species (who did not receive favorable genetic mutations) to die off while preserving the others that do. While this may be true, such environmental factors cannot possibly result in the development of a HIGHER or MORE COMPLEX species because the environment itself does not transfer any special power or potential needed to create a higher form. Environmental factors can force individuals within a species to adapt to their surroundings, but this is a form of MICROevolution not MACROevolution. (This is what actually happened with the finches in the Galapagos Islands). But, Darwin’s evolution is macroevolution, and that requires more than individual adaptation to an environment within a species, it requires the development of a new and more complex species from a lesser one, which is not logically possible as explained above.
By the way, the amount of time involved is totally irrelevant to the logical principle. If I don’t have the potential within me now to pass on a trait to my progeny, I still won’t have it a million years from now unless something from outside myself (say God) gives it to me. If for some reason God or even some factor in the environment could somehow infuse me with more complexity or a potential trait that I did not have before, then that outside force supplies the missing power, but that would not be an example of Darwinian evolution.
Nor does the fact that I may not outwardly demonstrate a certain ability or trait necessarily impact the logical principle. I may have brown eyes but possess a trait for blue eyes, which could be passed onto my children. My children could have blue eyes even though I do not because I possessed the ability or the trait for blue eyes. That is not what happens with macroevolution where it is claimed an inferior species can somehow transmit a higher order of being (or more complexity) that it does not have in the first place.
Evolution Violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Darwinian evolution also violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Physicist, Dr. Thomas Seiler, tells us:
[The Second Law of Thermodynamics] “states that for isolated systems entropy, which is a measure of probability, will always increase. Entropy determines the direction in which all processes in nature proceed: from less probable distributions to more probable distributions, from ordered structures to disordered ones and never vice versa. It is important to realize that this fundamental law refers to all physical processes including the suggested cosmic and biological evolution.” Source: “Cosmology, Thermodynamics and the Christian Doctrine of Creation,” Kolbe Center.
If the Second Law of Thermodynamics is accepted as true, and to my knowledge it is within the scientific community, then we can conclude exercising basic logic and our common sense that Darwinian macroevolution violates this principle and therefore must be false. The development of more complex organs and features from lesser ones constitutes an increase in order not disorder. That is, an increase in complexity, order and organization among biological organs and their constituent molecules is required for higher forms of species to evolve from lower ones. However, this violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics which requires an increase in disorder (entropy) not the movement towards more order.
The bottom line is that the movement towards disorder necessarily means we are DEvolving over time—that is becoming less organized or complex—and not evolving towards more complexity and superiority.
Conclusion
Evolutionary theory, as far as it attempts to explain the origins of mankind, can be disproved on multiple levels. I highlighted some of the obvious reasons why Darwinian evolution is logically IMPOSSIBLE here. The key point, however, is that this is not just a mind-exercise. The rejection of evolution recognizes the unique dignity and importance of the human being within the universe. We are not just another well-developed sea creature or monkey, we are specially created by God as human beings for a purpose—recognizing that truth is a key step towards restoring Christendom.
For additional and more detailed philosophical arguments against evolution see: Fr. Chad Ripperger. The Metaphysics of Evolution: Evolutionary Theory in Light of First Principles. Sensus Traditionis Press, 2012.