Is there any scientific evidence against evolution?

The evolutionary doctrine requires an enormous amount of faith much more than what Christianity requires. It is a belief so passionately defended by the media and the scientific establishment, even though there is no observable scientific evidence that proves one organism ever evolved into another.

I wish to first of all make it absolutely clear that "no one" has ever seen evolution happen. If it were a real process, it should still be occurring today and there should be millions of "transitional" forms living all around us. Yet this is not the case. What we see instead is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within "each kind", but with very clear and, apparently, unbridgeable gaps between kinds. A good example for a "variety" of "distinct kinds would be dogs. There are German Shepard's, Cocker Spaniels, Miniature Poodles, and on and on, but all are dogs and will always be dogs. The evidence clearly demonstrates macro-evolution didn't, isn't, and won't ever happen

Evolutions spin-doctors respond to these arguments by stating "it moves too slow for us to physically see it". Well, if we've been evolving for millions of years, as the theory proclaims, and given that evolution is a slow process that affects the many thousands of species, there should certainly be some around us today in the transitional process (lizards with partial wings etc…). But they're not there?

Evolutionists used to advertise that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving. If evolution has ever happened, there would be billions of fossils covering the billions of years of their evolution as they promote, but instead, we don't find ‘one.’ Because of this, evolutionists today are very soft in their efforts to try and use the fossil record for evidence and those that still try are those out-of-touch with mainstream science and still reading high school geology books they wrote from the 70’s.

After two hundred years of fighting creationists, and still armed with no more evidence today than when they first started, many evolutionists today, Stephen J. Gould for one, are now promoting the idea of "punctuated equilibrium" as the answer for evolution and its lack of fossilized evidence. This "theory" argues that "transitions" were instantaneous due to a cataclysmic event and because these changes were so instant, naturally there would be very little to no transitional evidence. How desperate can one possibly be? Statements like these no longer reflect good science, but rather Hollywood's version of science fiction.

Even those who believe in more rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would still be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There should be, without any questions what so ever, nearly as many "transitional forms" as there are "distinct kinds" preserved in the fossils; after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But they are not there and that is because evolution isn't happening now, and never happened in the past. Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period.

"Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first fish vertebrate – that is, the first fish – with its hard parts all on the inside. Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere.

So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of organisms, which didn't change during their durations?

"Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees – fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups……Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear of progressive manner – new features are often "cut and pasted" on different groups at different times."(1)

Evolutions biggest enemy is the law of increasing entropy – also known as the second law of thermodynamics. This law demonstrates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill" toward disorganization and decreased complexity. This law is, by any measure, one of the most universally, best-proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems – in fact, in all systems, without exception"(2) (the sun is losing mass, the earth’s magnetic field is decaying, stars are burning down, the continents are eroding into the ocean, the sea is gaining in salt content).

Evolutionists argue that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the evidence that all systems deteriorate toward disorganization.

While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best-known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

What is comforting to know is the Bible is in full-compliance with what we observe. That is, the first law states nothing is now being created nor destroyed, which exactly represents the Genesis doctrine of the finished creation, which God maintains. This second law says that this once ‘very good’ creation now suffers under the penalty of sin and death. Every object on earth that we study and every reaction that we observe abides by these two laws. Our observations confirm what we read in the Bible.