Any belief-system should be open to challenge. It is natural to expect that every belief-system will have some shortcomings, questions that are difficult to answer. Yet if a challenge suggests a contradiction in the belief, then one cannot confidentially claim that the belief-system is superior to all others. Certainly we should seek a belief-system that has more satisfactory answers.
An Evolutionist could believe in a Creator:
Is it possible that life on this planet evolved?
Is it possible that scientists will eventually be able to create life just as evolution did?
Is it possible that some day scientists could travel to another planet and create life there?
Could that life evolve on that planet?
Could that life eventually become intelligent?
Would those beings ever be able to discover they had been created? How?
Is it possible that life on this planet was started by a creator from another world?
How would you know?
If we were created, would you want to know it?
Challenges to macro-biological evolution
Challenges to Survival of the fittest
What did our very first ancestor look like? Evolutionists would say it was a one-celled living organism that just happened to form out of naturally occurring chemicals. That sounds quite amazing but that is only half of the story. If this living organism could not also reproduce, it was a dead-end and was not our ancestor. This means that not only did a bunch of chemicals form a living cell but they formed a creature that was able to reproduce, leading to offspring who could continue to reproduce.
If this facet of evolution were scientific, an experiment could be performed with naturally occurring chemicals that produced a living cell that could also reproduce. But this experiment has never been accomplished. So if this event cannot be performed, not even described, how does this belief differ from blind "faith?"
This suicidal behavior, shared by a very few other species, does not help survival in any way. So, following the model of survival of the fittest, we conclude that when such a species first appears by mutation on the evolutionary scene it would be competing against the established predecessor clan. Its predecessor would not have the same suicidal tendency, it would be more fit for survival, the males breed more often, they have more offspring. The suicidal newcomer usually only breeds once. So the newer mutation clan has no advantage, it would likely die out eventually. Therefore, if evolution is responsible for the suicidal species we see today, that would imply that all such species must be recent mutations. But if they are recent mutations, we should also see the predecessor species still in existence. We should see a species of spider very similar to the Black Widow except it would be without the suicidal tendency. It would be vastly more fit for survival and very visible. But we see no such cousin spider.
The second challenge to this situation is that if a non-suicidal male ever appeared, due to mutation, it would breed much more often than its predecessor. It would have more offspring, and this offspring would also have the non-suicidal tendencies. Then these would breed more often and soon the non-suicidal male would dominate. Yet we do not see this happening. Implying that there has not been sufficient time for such a mutation to appear, leading to the conclusion again that these suicidal species are very recent on the evolutionary scene. But then we ask again, where is the more robust predecessors? Evolutionists should never see a suicidal species without its parent clan still around.
What are the survival skills possessed by sheep? Modern breeds
of sheep appear to be devoid of survival skills or defensive mechanisms.
They seem to depend on humans for their existence. Without human protection
they become easy prey for predators. We do not see a symbiotic relationship
where some animal protects sheep for a selfish reason. Animals either have
no use for sheep or simply want to eat them. Only humans shepherd them
for use. So in what kind of environment did sheep evolve? If they had ancestors
that were more aggressive or more able to fend off predators, those breeds
would have out-performed a more passive kind and would have dominated throughout
time. Yet we see no such aggressive breed. It would seem the passive sheep
came into being and flourished only during the reign of humans, there were
no sheep ancestors prior to human shepherds.
There have been studies with infants and toddlers and the ability to discern the vocal sounds necessary to distinguish one word from another. In one study infants and toddlers were exposed to words with sounds that only occur in Arabic. When one particular sound was made some puppets would automatically dance. If a child was able to distinguish the specific sound from other accompanying sounds, the child would anticipate the dancing puppets and turn his/her head to watch. With repeated tests it was found that infants under 6 months always responded by turning their heads to watch, toddlers never did. Unless a child hears the sound as an infant, it will never be able to distinguish it.
So how did language develop? Adults could not have invented the subtle vocal sounds like those present in Chinese or Hindi for they would have been unable to hear them. Such language can only be learned as an infant, but they must be taught by an adult. So how did language evolve? The Bible says it was God's gift at creation, at the tower of Babel and lastly at Pentecost.
Surprisingly written language is easier to invent than spoken language
and adults can learn it easier because visual stimulation is pervasive
on earth, even for infants. Yet evolutionists insist spoken language is
much older than written language, why?
Animals do not need to cover themselves yet they adapt to the environment and survive. All human cultures, even ones living in temperate zones, feel the need to cover their bodies. Nudity among adult humans has a strong effect to the point of being considered a problem. How could this characteristic help humans survive and out-perform cousin competitors who had no need of clothing themselves? It cannot be claimed that humans lived in areas where survival required covering themselves with animal skins. Clearly the animals whose skins were used to make clothes were capable of surviving alongside the humans. Then the ancestors of the clothes-needing humans should have been capable of surviving just as other animals did, without the need of additional clothing. If a mutated human suddenly acquired the need to find clothing in addition to other needs, how did this improve the survivability of the organism? It appears that humans who need to clothe themselves have lost a useful attribute rather than gaining one.
The second attribute acquired is that of birth-pangs. Animals do not
experience the extreme suffering associated with human birthing. How can
this attribute be so crucial to human survival? Since other modern animals
did not evolve with this same weakness, it would seem somewhere along the
evolutionary chain there were pre-humans that did not experience this suffering.
They should have been more suited to reproduction and out-performing humans
who experienced birth-pangs with each and every child born. This seems
to speak against "survival of the fittest".
The evolutionary model does not explain and cannot reproduce the first formation of a living cell that could reproduce. It does not explain nor show how sexual reproduction began. It does not explain nor show why there are black widow spiders. It does not explain or show how spoken language started before written language nor how adults got spoken language before infants. Finally it does not explain how animals gifted with survival instincts evolved into Indians who needed those abilities but were born without them. If a person has a belief that life was started by an intelligent designer but cannot show it in an experiment and this is labeled "faith" then how is the evolutionary model, which says it all happened by chance but cannot be scientifically demonstrated, different from "faith?"
If someone were to encounter tough questions that challenged the Bible's
explanation would you not say it was reasonable to investigate other possible
explanations? Then likewise, is it not just as reasonable to say that since
the above challenges do not fit the evolutionary model one should investigate
a different explanation, one that has supporting evidence, the biblical