Back to previous page

Why Evolution Is Wrong
Problems For Evolution
By Jonathan A. Drake
© - 7/02

As a journalist, I am given assignments which sometimes require exhausting research and overnight vigils. On this relatively easy assignment I was required to listen to a lecture given by Dave Nutting, which was entitled '50 Scientific Reasons Why Evolution is Wrong.' After listening to the lecture, a question was raised in my mind, "How does evolution answer the charges this man brings forth?" Because of the constant changes in the actual theory of evolution, I am constantly behind in my understanding of it. But even my advanced understanding of evolution does not aid me in any way of answering my question.

In order for the reader to answer for his or herself, I will include several of the scientific reasons that Mr. Nutting brought forth.

I can remember in my high-school science class, the very first thing that I read out of my textbook was, "Science is based on observation." That statement is completely disregarded by anyone who claims that the Theory of Evolution is "science". The study of history is not a science because the person studying it cannot observe the past. "I was not around for your birth, so it never happened," replies the skeptic. No, but there is conclusive evidence to prove that I was born, and evolution, simply put, does not have such evidence.

For your own benefit, here are the several summaries of Mr. Nutting's reasons:

According to evolutionary teaching, the "Geologic Column" is a map of evolutionary history. Supposedly all fossils fit into a specific order, simple to complex. However, some flaws are to be found. Recently, fish scales were found in the "Cambrian layer" when according to the "column", fish did not appear until much later.

All over the world can be found layer-transversing fossils. A typical specimen is a tree running vertical through thousands of layers. Possible explanation: Those layers weren't laid down over billions of years, unless ancient trees had the capability to grow through solid rock, void of all sunlight. Lest the reader even consider such a wild notion, or one like it, some of these trees are found up-side-down. Indeed, they spell nothing but sudden catastrophe.

The trilobite is supposed to be very simple life form, therefore being found in the bottom layers of time (Cambrian). Yet when they are carefully magnified, one will discover that some species have eyes, and complex eyes at that. Professor Levi-Setti, an authority on trilobites, concluded, "Trilobites had solved a very elegant physical problem and apparently knew about Fermat’s principle, Abbé’s sine law, Snell’s laws of refraction and the optics of birefringent crystals … ." [1]

There are no transitional forms found, only the end product. David Kitz said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."[2] David Kitts is an evolutionist. Even if one or two were found, they are suspect even among evolutionists and in order to prove evolution, you would need hundreds of thousands everywhere.

The once so-called Nebraska man was later re-analyzed and found to be Nebraska Pig. The piece of evidence found was lacking in integrity as only one tooth was found. Later, more of the skeleton was found and it was indeed the skeleton of a pig.

Does 'Lucy' prove evolution? For that to be true the truth would be stretched extremely thin. Not even a complete skeleton was found, only a few pieces. Furthermore, her bones strongly suggest that she was nothing more than a knuckle-walking tree-dweller, not an upright man-like ape. (see Lucy)

Unfortunately for those convinced of evolution, the theory contradicts many laws of science. The second Law of Thermodynamics is clearly violated as evolution says that everything began as simple forms and gradually evolved into more complex ones. But as that law states, everything tends to disorder.

Some arguments for evolution is that if you give it enough time anything could happen. But unbeknownst to most, evolution doesn't have enough time. Billions or trillions of years is not even close to how much time would be needed. Rick Ramashing and Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the probability for one cell to evolve by chance. The atheist/agnostic team found to their disbelief that it is 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000th power years just for one cell to evolve. Hoyle said, "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.' "[3] Does evolution have enough time? No.

Although I was already a creationist, Mr. Nutting's statements and reasons convinced me even further of my belief.

So the question remains, can evolution answer these reasons?



1. R. Levi-Setti, Trilobites: A Photographic Atlas, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1975, p. 38.
2. D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467.
3. Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer), 'Hoyle on the Evolution'. Nature, vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105.

Available online at