We hold these truths to be undeniable.
Science Against Evolution is a California Public Benefit Corporation whose objective is to make the general public aware that the theory of evolution is not consistent with physical evidence and is no longer a respectable theory describing the origin and diversity of life. Since we don’t believe the theory of evolution, it is sometimes asked, “Well then, what do you believe?” Here is our answer.
What is Evolution?
Since there are many definitions of “evolution,” some of which describe actual scientific processes, we must begin by making it clear that the only evolutionary process we are talking about is the controversial one taught in American public schools. A famous court case regarding whether or not evolution can be taught in public schools used the following six-part definition of “the theory of evolution.”
- Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife;
- The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
- Emergence by mutation and natural selection of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
- Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes;
- Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and
- An inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life. [url=#footnote1]1[/url]
This is what we are talking about when we talk about “evolution.” This is not the same process as the evolution of the Model T Ford into a Ford Mustang. It is not the same process as breeding horses or corn. When we talk about evolution, we are talking about what children are taught in the public schools regarding the origin and transformation of life on Earth.
- Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.
- There is life on Earth now.
- At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.
- Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow.
- Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.
- Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
- Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
- The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.
- If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.
- If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.
- For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
- Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.
- Living things have been observed to die from natural processes, which can be repeated in a laboratory.
- Life has never been observed to originate through any natural process.
- “Abiogenesis” is the belief that life can originate from non-living substances through purely natural processes.
- The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
- If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
- The American public school system teaches that somehow the first living cell formed naturally and reproduced.
- There is no known way in which the first living cell could have formed naturally.
- The first living cell would have needed some mechanism for metabolism.
- There is no known natural process by which metabolism could originate in a lifeless cell.
- The first living cell would have to grow and reproduce for life to continue past the first cell’s death.
- Growth and reproduction require cell division.
- Cell division is a complex process.
- There is no known natural process by which cell division could originate by chance.
- According to the theory of evolution, single-celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms.
- Multi-cellular life forms consist of an assembly of cells that have different functions.
- There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.
- Single-celled organisms have a membrane which allows the cell to exchange some substances (“nutrients” and “waste”, for lack of better terms) with the environment.
- Not all cells in larger multi-cellular organisms are in contact with the external environment.
- Larger multi-cellular organisms need some method for the interior cells to exchange nutrients and waste with the external environment.
- Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including teeth, saliva, throat, stomach, and intestines) for absorbing nutrients from the environment.
- Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, intestines, heart, arteries, and veins) for distributing nutrients and oxygen to interior cells.
- Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, heart, arteries, veins, kidneys, and bladder) for removing waste from interior cells.
- There is no satisfactory explanation how complex systems such as these could have originated by any natural process.
- According to the theory of evolution, an invertebrate life-form evolved into the first vertebrate life-form.
- Vertebrates have, by definition, a spine containing a nervous system.
- The nervous system detects stimuli and reacts to them.
- There is no satisfactory explanation for how the simplest nervous system could have originated by any natural process.
- According to the theory of evolution, some of the first vertebrates were fish, which have eyes and a brain connected by a nervous system.
- There is no satisfactory explanation how optical elements (typically including a lens, an iris and light sensors) could have assembled themselves by any natural process.
- There is no satisfactory explanation how image processing algorithms could have originated in a fish brain by any natural process.
- If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation.
- Mutations have been observed that increase or decrease the size of some portion (or portions) of a living organism.
- Mutations have been observed that change the shape of a living organism.
- Mutations have been observed that duplicate existing features (cows with two heads, flies with extra wings, etc.).
- No mutation has ever been observed that provides a new function (sight, hearing, smell, lactation, etc.) in a living organism that did not previously have that function.
- Cross-breeding and genetic engineering can transfer existing functionality from one living organism to another.
- Cross-breeding cannot explain the origin of any new functionality in the first place.
- Artificial selection enhances desired characteristics by removing genetic traits that inhibit the desired characteristics.
- Artificial selection is more efficient than natural selection.
- There are limits to the amount of change that can be produced by artificial selection.
- Mutation and artificial selection have not been demonstrated to be sufficient to bring about new life forms from existing ones.
- Similarity of features is not definite proof of common ancestry.
- Similarity of features is often observed in objects designed by man.
- The fact that one individual was born later than another individual died is not proof that the later individual is a biological descendant of the earlier one, especially if they are of different species.
- Many different human evolutionary trees have been proposed.
- There is disagreement about hominid lineage because the “evidence” is meager and highly speculative.
- Darwin was correct when he said, “Any variation which is not inherited is unimportant for us.” [url=#footnote2]2[/url]
- Acquired characteristics are not inherited because they do not cause any change in the DNA.
- Explanations for how apelike creatures evolved into humans are fanciful speculations without experimental confirmation.
- There is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food.
- There is no evidence to suggest that mental exercises performed by parents will increase the brain size of their children.
- There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will increase the brain size of their children.
- There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will make it easier for their children to stand upright.
- Sedimentary layers are formed in modern times by such things as floods, mudslides, and sandstorms.
- The fossils in sedimentary layers formed in modern times contain the kinds of things living in that location.
- The concept of geologic ages is based upon the evolutionary assumption that the kinds of fossils buried in sedimentary layers are determined by time rather than location.
- All sedimentary layers formed in modern times are of the same geologic age, despite the fact that they contain different kinds of fossils.
- Radiometric dating depends upon assumptions that cannot be verified about the initial concentrations of elements.
- Radiometric dating of rocks brought back from the Moon is not a reliable method of determining the age of the Earth.
- “Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory.
- When measurements don’t agree with theoretical predictions, it is generally because the theory was wrong.
- “We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.
- Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true.
There is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food.
There is no evidence to suggest that mental exercises performed by parents will increase the brain size of their children.
There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will increase the brain size of their children.
The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.
You know who else believed in Creationism? The Spanish Inquisition.