Problems with Evolutionary Theory - No. 1

Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

By Pastor Ian Kurylyk


open Bible

Evolutionary theory violates the intuitive first principles of man’s rational being. (“It don’t make no sense.”) All human beings depend upon the Law of Cause and Effect to be able to function rationally in an ordered world.

Consider what everyone knows with certainty when they see a car: Some “cause” (working with existing raw materials), used energy, skill, information, and intelligence to fabricate that automobile (the effect). There is only one reasonable cause on the planet sufficient to construct such a sophisticated piece of technology, man. No sane person would propose random events as the cause for a car.

If we go on to consider the problem of the origin (existence) of the materials themselves - and the rest of the ordered universe - and the man that made the car - we have a unique situation in which we must apply the Law of Cause and Effect.

Two things guide our reasoning. First, science testifies that the materials are not eternal but have a beginning in time. Second, well understood scientific laws teach us natural processes never create anything out of nothing. This means essentially that there was a point of time before which nature did not exist and after which it all existed. There must be a sufficient cause.

This imposes necessary constraints in applying the Law of Cause and Effect. We may not proceed in an unthinking fashion that would force us through endless cycles of reasoning from effect to cause to cause to cause forever. That approach would keep us from ever arriving at a beginning and so necessitate an eternal universe (which we know is untrue). In effect, reason teaches us we can never solve the problem of origins by formulating a Law of Cause and Effect, which proves to be inherently atheistic.

We conclude that we are compelled by logical necessity to recognize a very special kind of cause that is above the processes of nature. This cause must accomplish what nature cannot. That is, it must be supernatural.

Since nature is known to be limited by time and incapable of self-creation, the cause must be above time (eternal) and itself uncaused (self-existent). This is the only option. In a temporal caused universe, ultimate origins cannot be attributed to something else that is caused. That only pushes the question of a sufficient cause outside of consideration. The only consistent, logical explanation for the origin of the universe as we know it is a first cause that has underived existence.

Further, we conclude a “cause”, which could give existence to the universe, must be powerful beyond anything known in nature and have sufficient intelligence to account for the intricate design and beauty we all observe. The cause must also have life and personality and a moral nature since He gave all these things to mankind. Surely the Creator must not be less than the creation. So without opening the Bible we must conclude an all-powerful, all-wise, eternal, immense, living, personal, holy Creator brought the universe into existence. (The Bible is, of course in hearty agreement.)

The insistence by evolutionists that natural processes must account for origins is a canard that cannot rationally be true. It defies reason and is inconsistent with all the known observed laws and natural processes of the universe. Why would anybody propose a theory like that, and then have the audacity to pretend that they represent the interests of science? The real facts of the case make it clear which side of the debate is truly supported by science and which side rests upon an insupportable claim that can only be described as part of a religious belief structure.

Organizations: The Bible

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • Antonio Deaguiar
    March 04, 2014 - 10:15

    General Theory of Evolution elements; and scientific laws and principles defied: The FABLE of the General Theory of Evolution is all encompassing just-so story; a Godless i.e. an unintelligent origin for the world requires: Cosmological evolution i.e. of the universe, chemical evolution i.e. the atoms of the periodic table, biological evolution i.e. of the first alleged common ancestor of all - aka abiogenesis, and the transmutation [aka macroevolution] of the alleged common ancestor into all the life forms that ever lived. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE SCIENTIFICALLY; EVOLUTIONISM DEFIES SCIENTIFIC LAWS AND PRINCIPLES. The absurd notion of biological evolution from nonliving and mindless chemical elements defies these scientific laws, principles or theorems: -1st & 2nd LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS [CONSERVATION OF ENERGY; EVER INCREASING ENTROPY/BIOLOGICAL ENTROPY RESP.] -LAW OF BIOGENESIS [LIFE FROM NONLIVING IS IMPOSSIBLE I.E. ABIOGENESIS] -INFORMATION SCIENCE & THEOREMS -MENDELIAN GENETICS -BREEDING LIMITATIONS [VARIATION LIMITED TO WITHIN KIND, NO CROSS BREEDING BETWEEN KINDS] -HALDANE'S DILEMMA -CHEMICAL LAWS -THE LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT

  • jeff
    March 01, 2014 - 09:25

    Isn't PEI eroding away? Isn't that a natural process along with how it was formed in the first place?

  • Paul Gallant
    February 28, 2014 - 16:42

    100% Correct! Science/Logic/Reason dictates...‘Everything that has a beginning has a sufficient cause’. The laws of thermodynamics dictate the universe had a beginning.

  • jeff
    February 28, 2014 - 08:55

    So how would you say Prince Edward Island was formed exactly?