A Few Weaknesses Of Evolutionism

I would like to reproduce a portion of "Know Why You Believe", by Paul

E. Little, but I need InterVarsity Press' written permission to do so.

So, since I don't want to wait for that, I will make it brief (to avoid

getting anybody too ruffled) and I'll only quote (part of) the portion

which is quoted in "KWYB" as originating from G. A. Kerkut, in his

conversations with students he has been tutoring.

"Before one can decide that the theory of evolution is the best

explanation of the present-day range of living material, one should

examine all the implications that such a theory may hold. Too often the

theory is applied to, say, the development of the horse, and then,

because it is held to be applicable there, it is extended to the rest of

the animal kingdom with little or no further evidence.

"There are, however, seven basic assumptions that are often not mentioned

during discussions of evolution. Many evolutionists ignore the first

six assumptions and consider only the seventh.

"The first assumption is nonliving things gave rise to living material,

i.e. that spontaneous generation occurred.

"The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

"The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are

all interrelated.

"The fourth assumption is that the protozoa gave rise to the metazoa.

"The fifth assumption is that the various invertebrate phyla are

interrelated.

"The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the

vertebrates.

"The seventh assumption is that the vertebrates and fish gave rise to the

amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and the reptiles to the birds

and mammals. Sometimes this is expressed in other words, i.e. that the

modern amphibia and reptiles had a common ancestral stock, and so on.

"For the initial purposes of this discussion on evolution I shall

consider that the supporters of the theory of evolution hold that all

these seven assumptions are valid, and that these assumptions form the

general theory of evolution.

"The first point I should like to make is that the seven assumptions by

their nature are not capable of experimental verification. They assume

that a certain series of events has occurred in the past. Thus, though

it may be possible to mimic some of these events under present-day

conditions, this does not mean that these events *must* therefore have

taken place in the past. All it shows is that it is *possible* for such

a change to take place.

Thus, to change a present-day reptile into a

mammal, though of great interest, would not show the way in which the

mammals *did* arise. Unfortunately, we cannot bring about even this

change; instead we have to depend upon limited circumstantial evidence

for our assumptions, and it is now my intention to discuss the nature of

this evidence."

Notice that Evolution is decidedly unscientific (resting as it does upon

no less than seven fundamentally unverifiable assumptions). God hands us

the answers; why go anyplace else?