Christian Apologetics Study



The scientific method is a tool employed by the scientific community to make discoveries and produce knowledge about the universe. Today it is being utilized to expose neo-Darwinian dogma.

Within the past few years, elements within the scientific community have declared Darwinism to be pseudo-science on the verge of complete collapse within the 21st century because Darwinism is simply inconsistent with the scientific method. Today’s scientific and technological progression have been made possible due to the scientific method, which consist of observation of natural phenomena, hypothesis formulation, experimentation for confirmation and validation of a new scientific theory.

The scientific method is a tool employed by the scientific community to make discoveries and produce knowledge about the universe. The scientific method separates science from faith based attempts to produce real knowledge which many people attempt to advertise as scientific. To understand real science people must learn how the scientific method works, how scientists work, and why science is sometimes superior to other faith based alternatives. The scientific method’s logical steps illustrate two significant science fundamentals.

First, science is primarily limited to the present. Until new technology is invented for time travel, science will never allow a person to analyze data from the past or from the future; therefore, science currently can only analyze present conditions to determine certain phenomena or conditions. An archaeologist can examine artifacts, catalogue them, and make educated guesses using the techniques of historiography, but he or she can never perform a controlled experiment to discern what happened during the past.

Second, the scientific method provides data independent of the scientist’s worldview. A scientist with a theistic belief system will arrive at exactly the same conclusions when analyzing the same data and using the same scientific method as any person with either an atheistic or agnostic believe system. Science does not depend upon what a particular belief system and is, therefore, it is not the sole domain of evolutionists, materialists, and atheists. Therefore, the attempt to cast the debate between evolutionists and intelligent design theorists as science versus religion or fact versus faith is simply ridiculous and ignorant.


Modern Darwinism stands as theory in crisis, according atheist Dr. Michael Denton. Experiments demonstrating how life could originate from non-life in a primordial, pre-biotic soup have all failed leaving evolutionists with no explanation for life’s origins, according to Dr. Jonathan wells. Stanley Miller’s 1953 experiment where he produced a few amino acids is no longer considered to be a confirmation for the naturalistic evolution for life, but this mythology is still being taught by secular academics as proof for evolution, according to agnostic Dr. David Berlinski.

Miller assumed the planet Earth’s primitive atmosphere was a reducing atmosphere that contained ammonia and methane gases but no oxygen. As a chemist, he knew that a reducing atmosphere was absolutely necessary if any molecules were to form spontaneously. The data suggests that a neutral atmosphere produced by volcanic gases was present in the early Earth. These gases form none of life’s building blocks in Miller’s apparatus. Certain artifacts suggest that oxygen was indeed present very early in the Earth’s formation, according to Dr. Jonathan Wells. The production of naturally occurring, pure, usable chemicals to build molecules would be impossible in the waters of the primitive earth, according to Dr. Cairns-Smith. 


Darwinists believe that it is possible for all life’s building blocks to form randomly under natural conditions when they spontaneously assemble themselves into a living cell. However, mathematicians and biochemists calculated the probability for life’s organization and they determined that there is only one chance in 1040,000 that a single cell organism could be assembled from organic molecules, according to Sir Fred Hoyle.  Probabilities that are greater than 1050 are simply impossible, according to many within the scientific community. The four billion years given by evolutionists for determination of life’s evolution is not enough time for life to arise out of a primordial soup, according to Dr. Francis Crick.

The neo-Darwinian shortcomings continue to manifest themselves. If it could be demonstrated scientifically that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, then the evolution theory must collapse, according to Charles Darwin.


When we assess the evidence for neo-Darwinism, we discover two scientific research areas that provide evidence against evolutionary dogma. The first line of evidence against neo-Darwinism demonstrates that genetic mutations cannot build new genes, according to Dr. Georgia Purdom.   Mutations are only trivial changes resulting from the genetic alteration of genes already present, whereas genetic evolution requires the synthesis of new genes, according to Dr. Pierre-Paul Grasse. Genetic studies provided evidence that mutations never take succeeding animal populations farther away from their beginning point, but rather the succeeding animal populations stay firmly fixed within their natural genetic boundaries. Bacteria, despite their innumerable mutations, have never transgressed the structural framework where they have always fluctuated, according to Dr. Pierre-Paul Grasse and Dr. George Purdom.

A growing number of geneticists confirmed the findings against neo-Darwinism because the weight of scientific evidence demonstrates that many mutations primarily result in the loss of genetic information, which is precisely the opposite of many Darwinian predictions, according to Dr. Georgia Purdom and Dr. Lee Spetner.  The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for a theory. It is strong evidence against the evolution theory, according to Dr. Lee Spetner.


The next line of scientific evidence that discredits neo-Darwinism is irreducible complexity. Darwin’s simple-to-complex scheme has not stood up under scientific scrutiny. The famous Biochemist Dr. Michael Behe declared that irreducible complexity extends to the cell and to the other components that make up the living cell. This means that the cell could never have been built by simple step processes. Any functioning cell has to have all its complexity from the beginning. Anything less would have been non-functional, organic garbage. Behe’s famous mousetrap example illustrates the fallacy for why part of an eye is not much better than no eye at all because the part of an eye works no better than having only half the parts of a mousetrap. Irreducible complexity down to the smallest parts demands an omniscient Creator-Designer God who by His omniscience created an amazingly complex cell that demonstrates the Creator’s genius to humanity.

Dr. Behe’s reasoning explains why DNA, RNA, and proteins could never have evolved, according to any neo-Darwinian mechanism. When observing individual protein molecules, biochemists see great complexity and variety, with each individual molecule having a very specific function in life. Researchers ask the question: how do these molecules know their task? The answer to their question can be found in the molecules, known as DNA and RNA. These molecules transport the chemical instructions for creating and replicating life. DNA contains the actual blueprint or information for building all the components of a living cell, and RNA transports that information to other parts of the cell.

We should think of DNA as being similar to a compact disk complete with all the information and instructions for building a CD and a CD player. Without the RNA, the cells would have no way of comprehending the information contained in the DNA, which is information that will instruct the protein molecules to form or repair living cells. Because the instructions for building the RNA are contained within the DNA, it is similar to having a CD that contained all of the instructions detailing how to build a CD and a  CD player. However, with no CD player to play the CD on, how could we access the information? This means that neither RNA nor DNA could have evolved independently. Neo-Darwinists refuse to argue for the simultaneous evolution of DNA and RNA because they realize that it supports Dr. Behe’s irreducible complexity argument.


Modern Darwinism is collapsing before our eyes. In the near future, science will still call this evolution, but it will not reflect any of the religious dogmas of Darwinism. While evolution’s mainstay collapses gradually, the intelligent design (ID) scientific theory remains the only realistic explanation for life’s origin, history, and destiny. The ID science theory best explains the objective evidences seen today, such as the absence of transitional forms of life observed within the fossil record. The absence of transitional forms between fishes and amphibians, among amphibians and reptiles, and amid reptiles and mammals and birds demonstrates the major gaps found throughout the geological record. These missing links remain missing because they never existed during the primeval past.

The history of life reveals that the more biological organism’s change the more they remain the same. Genetic mutations and natural selection within plant and animal populations facilitates variation only, but never the creation of new genes which are necessary for the evolution of new species. Life’s history shows extinction decorating the fossil record, but never the formation of new plant and animals life forms.  The Creator created the kinds to bring forth after their own kind. The Creator designed genetic diversity within the cell which allows for the variation observed within the kinds.

Evolution is a religious philosophy applied to science and many people believe this 21st century creation myth because they love religion more than factual hard scientific truth. Atheism, deism, and scientism are faith based belief systems with some similarities to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  Therefore, the ar

gument here is not just between the ID theory and evolution theory. The argument is on a religious and philosophical level. Evolutionary thinking rules out any supernatural and looks for other explanations within the naturalistic perspective, while the ID paradigm searches for both natural and supernatural explanations for the subject of origins. The scientific ID theory will  eventually replace neo-Darwinian dogma because it seeks answers from both a naturalistic and supernatural perspective.


    • Christian Apologetics; Doug Powell; 2006.
    • Charles Darwin; Michael Ruse; 2008.
    • Decoding Your Genes; Dr. Mark V. Bloom; 1999.
    • Evolution; Leslie Alan Horvitz; 2002.
    • Evolution; Dr. Greg Krukonis;2008.
    • Genetics, Evolution, and Creation; Dr. Georgia Purdom; 2009.
    • Collapse of Evolution: Harun Yaha; 2005.
    • Life Science; Lesley A. Du Temple; 2000.
    • Journey Toward Creation; Dr. Hugh Ross; 2000.
    • The Case For A Creator; Lee Strobel;2005.
    • Three Views on Creation and Evolution; J.P. Moreland; 1999.
    • Understanding Creation; Mark Whorton and Hill Roberts; 2004.


Comments are closed.