5 Q’s for Evolutionists


The Cosmological Argument is still one of the best refutations of atheism out there. We live in a cause and effect world. But what caused the universe to exist? Where did the stuff of the Big Bang (if you believe in that) come from? There are only three possible answers: matter has always been here in some form (a very weak position that runs contrary to the laws of thermodynamics), all matter popped into existence from absolutely nothing (a position of wild faith, the likes of which has never been observed in the real world), or intelligent design. The most reasonable of these is clearly the last.

Atheists sometimes will retort, “Where did God come from?” But God, by anyone’s definition, is supernatural. He is not subject to a cause and effect universe that He made. It is only those who claim there is nothing but the universe and its natural laws that are limited by the law of cause and effect in their origins model. The Christian worldview is entirely consistent. In Romans 1:20 the Bible says: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.”


In a 2007 issue of The Guardian, physicist Paul Davies said, “Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth – the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, the physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient ‘coincidences’ and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal.”

Davies, to be fair, is not saying God did it. But he nicely describes the problem that requires faith in a designer, multiplied universes, or unknown natural laws. Without a Creator, there is no reason to even expect a rational universe with laws that permit scientific inquiry. Truly, “the heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1).


This is probably the biggest problem of all for the naturalists that want to explain origins without a Creator. Evolutionists must get from cosmic evolution (a hot molten rock glob that would supposedly cool to be Earth) to a self-replicating life form. It seemed credible for Darwin to envision life spontaneously evolving in a warm little pond. But today we know that the “simplest cell” has immense complexity, a veritable city of factories, information libraries, protein machines, waste disposal and transportation systems, etc.

Bio-genetic programs are incredibly complex, with overlapping DNA regions like the puzzler phrases on the top and bottom of this pamphlet. In a 2007 article in PLoS Computational Biology Korean biomedical expert Chung et al. claim that “dual coding is nearly impossible by chance.”

The Law of Biogenesis is as solid as science gets: Only life begets life! The spontaneous generation hypothesis is a dead end and the Darwinian story of “Goo to You Via the Zoo” does not deserve to be in the textbooks.


In his book On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin remarked, “To suppose that the eye…could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

When faced with terribly complex biological systems (all the pieces of which have to be in place suddenly for it to work) evolutionary theorists have concocted far-fetched models of gross improbability.

We have never observed a mutation that adds new information to the genome. Werner Gitt was Director of the German Federal Institute of Physics & Technology. His book In the Beginning was Information states, “Information only arises through an intentional, volitional act….There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.”


In his best-selling book The God Delusion, atheist Richard Dawkins (after considering the whopping unlikelihood of life from non-life) conceded, “The origin of consciousness might be another major gap whose bridging was of the same order of improbability.”

The problem is that there is a wide chasm between mankind and every animal. Sure, some creatures can be taught to do pretty amazing things. But no dog ever wrote a poem, no dolphin ever contemplated philosophy, and no ape ever built an altar. Not only is it difficult to explain the evolution of morality and a human conscience, but even the survival benefit gained from them is highly dubious. “Wasting” precious resources in worship, philosophy, benevolence for those who are less fit, and having qualms about raw, selfish greed all run contrary to the premise of survival of the fittest.

Blaise Pascal famously propounded the idea that there is a “God-shaped hole” inside of every human being. The Bible states it this way:  “that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it unto them” (Romans 1:19).

The point of these 5 simple questions is not to disprove atheistic evolution (an impossible task) but to suggest that it is a position of faith, a faith far less reasonable scientifically than Biblical Christianity.