It's Extremely Easy to Debunk the Evolution Theory
I don't know why intellectuals around the world treat it like fact.
When as a student I first heard of the Evolution Theory, my thought was it sounded like an attempt to replace the Creation Story of the Bible. I’m not saying that “Creation” happened like the Bible depicts it, but I find it easier to believe that story than the Evolution Theory. I think it is reasonable to believe that there is intelligence behind the design of the universe. At the end of this article there is a reference to intelligent design as “pseudoscience.” Perhaps this could also be said of the Evolution Theory.
If we consider the above as the reason behind why the theory was developed and/or perpetrated—it was clearly sold as an “enlightened” way of thinking—then it is easy to understand the tenacity with which academics adhere to it and actually mock those who don’t. The best way to get someone to dispel their belief is by making them an outsider and causing them to question themselves. That is what western culture does to you if you don’t believe the Evolution Theory. Even the renowned Jordan Peterson treats the theory like fact and this amazes me because I consider him a thoughtful and not particularly gullible intellectual.
I propose that the problem with dispensing with the Evolution Theory is that we then have no probable, if not plausible, explanation for how we got here. This is disorienting for some. But what I see as worse is the way people with absolutely no background training in the Evolution Theory take aspects of it and spout it as the absolute truth. The word “Evolution” should not be divorced from the word “Theory,” as that is what it will always be, a theory.
In defense of the theory, I will say that it is reasonable to think that complex organisms may have developed from simple organisms. Evolution depends on time for its “plausibility” and yet there is no evidence that time, even billions of years, would result in the development of a universe.
I’ve heard evolutionists admit that this world around us required at least one miracle and this was expressed as the need for matter. You can have a “Big Bang” from which a universe explodes, but matter exploding out of nothing is a stretch.
In Thomas Sowell’s reaction to Musk’s expression on X that he regretted things he said about Trump, Sowell expresses how rare it is for prominent figures to see their error and admit it. Truth and honesty are often secondary to self-promotion and self-preservation. My observation is that the Theory of Evolution must be perpetrated for preservation of the dignity of intellectuals, whether true or false.
Imagine academics coming out and saying the Evolution Theory is “misinformation.” When you say it is just a theory then it is not misinformation, however, treating it like it is not a theory and building a whole structure on it is misinformation. If you go to Wikipedia, it essentially says that the Evolution Theory should be treated as truth, not because it is, but because it is fundamental to so many other beliefs. Think about that for a moment. Think about how many edifices would topple if we swept away the Evolution Theory. Therefore we have to maintain the Evolution Theory.
Here is the circular reasoning I am referring to, from Wikipedia:
Evolutionary biologists have continued to study various aspects of evolution by forming and testing hypotheses as well as constructing theories based on evidence from the field or laboratory and on data generated by the methods of mathematical and theoretical biology. Their discoveries have influenced not just the development of biology but also other fields including agriculture, medicine, and computer science.
Because other fields of study have arrived at reasonable conclusions, while employing the Evolution Theory, we now have to consider the Evolution Theory as reliable. Let’s just state the obvious: one does not follow the other.
Understandably, the Evolution Theory itself is evolving:
In the early 20th century, competing ideas of evolution were refuted and evolution was combined with Mendelian inheritance and population genetics to give rise to modern evolutionary theory. -Wikipedia
From the same source, it appears that this is the reason why we are to believe the Evolution Theory:
All life on Earth—including humanity—shares a last universal common ancestor (LUCA),[9][10][11] which lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago.[12] The fossil record includes a progression from early biogenic graphite[13] to microbial mat fossils[14][15][16] to fossilised multicellular organisms. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped by repeated formations of new species (speciation), changes within species (anagenesis), and loss of species (extinction) throughout the evolutionary history of life on Earth.[17] Morphological and biochemical traits tend to be more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, which historically was used to reconstruct phylogenetic trees, although direct comparison of genetic sequences is a more common method today.[18][19]
I am going to create my own story of “evolution.” Suppose the great Engineer of the Universe had some helpers and he said to them, “I want you to create a bird. These are the specifications: make it fly, like a bee, which aerodynamically operates according to the laws of physics (humans only discovered this in the last 20 years). Like the bird, the bee is not yet perfected but you can look at the (AI generated) explanation on bee flying aerodynamics:
Bees employ a unique and complex aerodynamic system to achieve flight, involving rapid, short wing strokes, wing rotation, and the generation of vortices. These mechanisms allow them to hover, maneuver, and generate sufficient lift despite their small size and relatively low wing surface area compared to fixed-wing aircraft.
1. Wing Movement and Rotation:
Bees don't just flap their wings up and down. They rotate them, creating a figure-eight motion that generates both lift and thrust.
The wings sweep back and forth, twisting and rotating as they move, which helps them interact with the air in a way that maximizes lift.
This rapid wing movement is essential for generating the necessary aerodynamic forces to overcome gravity.
2. Vortex Generation:
The rapid wing rotation creates vortices (mini-hurricanes) in the air, especially at the leading edge of the wings.
These vortices help to lower the air pressure above the wings, contributing to lift.
The wings also manipulate these vortices to prevent stall, even at high angles of attack, a technique that is not typically used in fixed-wing aircraft.
3. High Wingbeat Frequency:
Bees have a high wingbeat frequency, meaning their wings move very rapidly.
This high frequency helps compensate for their small wingspan and allows them to generate enough lift to fly, even when hovering.
For example, honeybees beat their wings about 240 times per second according to PNAS.
4. Small Stroke Amplitude:
Bees utilize short-amplitude, high-frequency wing strokes.
This means their wings move over a smaller distance but at a higher rate compared to some other flying insects.
This method allows them to generate the required aerodynamic forces efficiently.
“This information should prove helpful.”
The Engineer gives additional specifications for the construction of the bird, such as teaching the bird to migrate and prepare for migration. The bird must also multiply, so it must lay eggs. Natural birth of a fetus would also be a possibility but in this case, eggs. These eggs need to be designed to contain an embryo and not to break when they are sat on. They must also not be too strong to break out of. Oh, and the bird must know that it must sit on the eggs. It must also design a nest and build it to contain the eggs. “In these ways it will differ from the bee.”
The designer objects to the complexity of creating a bird that flies.
“OK, then create a flightless marine bird. A penguin.”
Then the Engineer thinks to himself or herself or itself, “But I will need an ecosystem for this bird and for the bees. I will also need multiple birds and bees, a male and a female to begin with. Where did I get the idea that I would need two different kinds of birds to create one bird?”
“So, trees, a world with water…maybe ice. A solar system with a sun to warm and earth suspended in the universe. An earth that rotates and maintains consistent gravitational pull, atmospheric pressure, an atmosphere…. This is getting extremely complicated. I think I started at the wrong end. I need to begin with the world of the bird. But why do I even want a bird?” At this point the Engineer gives up and says, “I will just leave it to evolution. These specifications are way too complicated. I will leave it to chance. Billions of years of chance will likely produce a universe and a bird.”
How do you like my story?
The Evolution Theory has one thing right. What we see around us is made out of similar building blocks configured in different ways. What we see around us includes simplicity and complexity. But, even the most simple components are too complex for humans to grasp. When we move from the microscopic to the cosmos, there is an infinity that humans will never comprehend or be able to explain. We are at a loss to understand the complex ecosystems that are essential to our survival. What the Evolution Theory gets wrong is that this is a result of chance combinations.
Actually one way to debunk the Evolution Theory (there are millions of examples I could use) is to ask the simple question of why men have beards and women don’t? According to the Theory of Evolution we should be able to expect that recent social advances in equality for men and women might gradually result in women beginning to grow beards as an indication of their evolution to the status of equality and shared responsibility with men. Or the fact that men are now urbanized and no longer hunter/gatherers, might indicate that urbanized men no longer need beards and therefore evolution will gradually, over years, eliminate this excess. Which will it be?
This is called “natural selection.” There has been a lot of entertainment value in the persistence and insistence on “proving” the evolution theory. Aspects of the theory make a level of sense but the larger context is ignored and this is the supporting framework required for its validation, without which it implodes. Let me put it another way. Even if you add up all the different angles of approach attempted to “prove” evolution, it still is not a convincing “science.” The evidence is just not there, unless you change the definition of evidence to mean speculation. We’ve come fairly close this with regards to evolution when we say it has utility and can functions as a fact.
Evolution is adaptation and improvement. This is what we are told. This is assumed. Time can also, and probably likely, result in deterioration rather than evolution. Think of all the species lost to us.
Nobody is listening to the argument that there are no fossils of half-way developed species. Where did they go? They would prove so useful to the Evolution Theory. Oh, we have a few bones of humans that appear different from humans of today and a whole theory is now based on these fragmented samples.
Then we have the matter of DNA evidence. Genetic sampling shows that humans are very similar to many animals, not only chimps. So there is that.
Here are a few more questions and you can add your own:
Why are birds’ feathers coloured differently?
Why do people not have feathers, but hair?
Why do hair follicles grow on the ends of our eyelids, in a line, in a single row and have a built in natural lubricant that proceeds from pores?
How did the shape of our brow form over each of our eyes, symmetrically, and why does the hair grow at a different rate on our eyebrows, in our nose and ears and on our head?
Why do we have two eyes and how was the need for two eyes and their placement determined? What did humans, or animals, for that matter, look like before that development?
How do our eyeballs communicate with our brain to create vision? How long did it take to perfect this development process and how was it monitored over time to determine effectiveness? What happened in the interim before sight?
The question Peterson returns to is, why do humans have morals? That one seems to stump him even as he accepts evolution. Why, universally, and virtually from infancy, do humans have a sense of justice and injustice? A little child who is too young to speak will become distressed at seeing another human mistreated. How was the concept of justice constructed? What are the implications? Also, why do humans have agency, when animals do not? That is another question.
Why do we not admit our ignorance and stop pretending we have the answer? That one is easy. It is because of our unwillingness to concede that there may indeed be a God of the Universe who takes an interest in the details of his Creation. Admitting this would be to admit our finite understanding and would perhaps require a level of humility and contriteness unpleasant to us. It might even necessitate that we offer something akin to worship and experience a sense of obligation to the One responsible for our design. Such an imposition. It would be much better to construct a false narrative of creation that does not involve a deity and then demand that humanity bow to this “enlightenment.” Banish the simple-minded doubters. Definitely banish them from positions of influence and institutes of learning. Label them pre-historic and ignorant. That should do it.
Interestingly, Wikipedia concludes with this:
The teaching of evolution in American secondary school biology classes was uncommon in most of the first half of the 20th century. The Scopes Trial decision of 1925 caused the subject to become very rare in American secondary biology textbooks for a generation, but it was gradually re-introduced later and became legally protected with the 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas decision. Since then, the competing religious belief of creationism was legally disallowed in secondary school curricula in various decisions in the 1970s and 1980s, but it returned in pseudoscientific form as intelligent design (ID), to be excluded once again in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case.[355]
So, maybe as a young student I was not really that far off in thinking that pushing the Theory of Evolution in schools was done with the intention of dispelling a “competing religious belief.”