Does Science Support Evolutionary Theory?
Articles Blog

Does Science Support Evolutionary Theory?

There is an assumption made in most schools,
universities and even in the production of documentaries on nature, that all scientists
are unanimous in their belief that life as we know it on earth, evolved over time from
rudimentary non-life into viruses and cells that then, over eons of time, developed into
the lifeforms we know today. Is this assumption correct? Does science support Evolutionary Theory? The theory that life has evolved on earth
from non-life is widely touted as a universally accepted idea by the scientific community. However, upon careful examination of scientific
literature and statements of thousands of highly qualified scientists, it appears nothing
could be further from the truth. The website entitled “Scientific Dissent from
Darwinism” contains a list of 1000 PhD’s in just about every scientific field from around
the world, many holding senior posts in some of the world’s leading universities. They have all signed in agreement with the
following statement: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation
and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian
theory should be encouraged.” The idea that science is in agreement with
evolutionary theory is simply an untruth. In fact there are three areas of science which
distinctly point to the need for an organizing and intelligent power to have designed and
brought life into existence. First of all there is the science of cosmology
� the study of the universe. Today science generally agrees that the universe
had a beginning. Since all evidence points to the fact that
the universe is expanding, then it must have had a beginning. This is supported by no less a scientist than
Dr. Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University, author of over 150 papers in theoretical physics
and cosmology. He explains that:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Something caused the universe to exist in
a well-designed, law-abiding way. Secondly, the science of physics: The universe
is governed by law, law defined by a number of constants that make the physical universe
and life possible such as: gravity, heating and cooling, expansion, light etc. These laws appear to be consistent throughout
the universe. There are about 26 constants that must be
set at a precisely correct value in order to allow the stars, planets and life to exist. The odds of this occurring by chance, especially
given the number of possible settings, and that only one combination will give us the
universe as we know it, are fantastically improbable. Hence Dr. Vera Kistiakowsky, Prof of Physics
at MIT, has stated: “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific
understanding of the physical calls for the divine.” A third area is the study of the structure
of the single cell. In the days prior to the 1960’s, the single
cell was known as a simple cell. This expression “the simple cell”, is no longer
used, as it is known to be a fallacy as a result of the discoveries in microbiology. Today the incredible intricacy of living cells,
with their complex organelles, molecular motors and sophisticated chemistry, along with the
incredible mechanisms for self-reproduction, all of which had to be present from the outset
to sustain life, presents an insurmountable problem to the honest evolutionist. The laws of cosmology, physics and the laws
and processes of biology are some of the issues that motivated the scientists whose names
are found in the Dissent from Darwin list. Please feel free to order and examine a new
and free publication entitled: “Evolution and Creation: What Both Sides Miss”. You can acquire a copy online or, if you wish,
a free print version. There is no obligation or follow-up. I am Stuart Wachowicz for Tomorrow’s World
Viewpoint. Subscribe and click the notification bell
to receive updates about new content. Visit for more articles,
telecasts and booklets.

30 thoughts on “Does Science Support Evolutionary Theory?

  1. All previous comments were erased. What's the use of trying to write something intelligent I wonder even on YouTube! I don't know if I'll even bother to comment or reply to other comments ever again!

  2. 1.Your Arguments against Evolution had nothing to do with Your arguments addressed Atheism. Evolution and Atheism are completely different

    2. There is no "theory of evolution." There is multiple evolutionary theories, like Theistic evolution or structuralist evolution, etc. The most famous one is Neo-Darwinan evolution. Those scientists you listed probably dislike the Darwinan theory but still support other theories

    (Keep in mind I'm a Christian)

  3. I just want to drop this shocking Must see documentary.
    It is an eye opening documentary.

  4. This muddles the difference between "belief" and "fact". The statement that the people signed is based on a belief. What science brings about are facts. The problem with the human race is when we try and make a belief a fact. They are radically different. be at peace with your beliefs, but understand they are not facts. As soon as you find evidence to back up a belief, it is no longer a belief, it's fact. This is why the concept of "god" is still a belief.

  5. When you bring up the sheer impossibility of abiogenesis the critic will yell and scream, "That has nothing to do with evolution, only biology does". Then when I say, "ok then, give me your best evidence for evolution"… They say "the Fossil Record". LOL, Not even biology… Ridiculous.
    They have nothing anymore, I've debunked all of it.

  6. Medicine and basic antibiotics wouldn’t be possible without the predictions and discoveries made by evolutionary scientists. Every winter we have the flu virus, which evolves every time which is why we need flu shots every year, cuz the virus evolve an immunity to the previous medicine. Better yet, if evolution is wrong, what theory do you replace it with ? Because in science for something to be wrong, you need new evidence that contradicts your previous assumptions. Anyone can say something is wrong, but you need your own theories and predictions that replaces the current idea. If evolution is wrong, point at the exact instances and provide your own explanation

  7. Genomes of animals were created by a genius. Here is part of the mouse genome on chromosome number 2, maybe someone can explain the function of this sequence of nucleotide bases…
    gcagtggaca caggaatacg cagtggacac aggaatatgc agtggagaca ggaatacgca gtggacacag gaatacgcag tggacacagg aatacgcagt ggacacagga atacgcagtg gagacaggaa tatgcagtgg agacaggaat acgcagtgga cacaggaata cgcagtggac acaggaatac gcagtggaga ctggaatatg cagtggagac aggaacacgc agtggagaca ggaatatgca gtggagacag gaatacgcag tggagacagg aatacgcagt ggacacagga atacgcagtg gagacaggaa tacgcagtgg agacaggaac acgcagtgga gacaggaaca cgcagtggag acaggaatac gctgtggaga caggaataca ctgggtcggt ttggacgttg gtgctgggga ttgaagcaag ccttgaacgc gaccagacag tgctgtaact gaactgcttc ttccctgggg cagtgtttct ttcagttccg aggttctgct cacctggttt ctaatttatg cagataaatc tctgggtcaa gcataagtgt gcctacaact ttagcccttg gaagggaaag gcaggggatt gggagtttaa ccccaacctg cactgcgcag tgagactcta tctcaaaata ataatattgc agttggtaat cgggtctgtg aatccaaaat agtcctgaaa tatcatgttt tatcagtctc ttttataaaa acctaacaat attaccaaaa agccattgga ctgtctggag tactggagtt gggagcatta gaaaatgagg aaacagacag tggctctctg ctgctgcctg tctgaaggtg tagaaggtcc tccattggta gaggtttcaa gcagaaggca gcagtattgc cattcatctc tctgtctttc tccttcacag gagtatttct tgcaagcaga gttgacaagt aacgttttga aaacaggagt ggtccactgc tgtgtggggc agtgcaacaa caccatccct gtggacacca tccttaccat gaagaaactg cctatcactt atgtacgttc actgtgggag ttaagtcact caagcacctt ttcttgcttg tgcgttatgt gtctgtctag gttctggatg agggaggtaa tggagtcgtt tctataatgc ttccttcccc aagagttttc tatggaagca tggcagatgt gagttctgcc tttttgtcag agatggaacc aatgatctaa agtgagttgg gttggatgac tgctatttcc tgggtgtgct aaagacttcc agcctgggag gttgagctgt gctgagagac ctcagagggg agctgtttgc ctggaggacc tggttcaatc tttctttgtt ctttatctct ttcttattct ctggtgctag aaactgagca tgctagttgt gtactccagc gctcagcagt ccctagttct ttatctcctg atgggatgat tgtgttagtc ctctaaagga ctgggatgga gttgagtcta gatcagtgat cagtgggtgt gcacagccac aatgaattag catgttagca gatgtgacag taattcggcg ctttttggtg aaaaattttt atccttagat tgtcccttac tctttttctt atccatcctt gtagagcaac aggaaggaaa acaagggtgg ctacctctgc cactcatgtg cagagcagcg catcgggcct ttggcattcc tgactgcctc

    This is only a small part of the 2,700,000,000 nucleotide bases that can create a mouse. Does anyone think that they're smart enough to invent a sequence of nucleotide bases that can create an animal?

  8. "It's likely that it wouldn't happen so it couldn't have happened" I don't have the time to dig into this thing so here is something short:
    This was the most painful 5 minute long video I have watched along the entirety of my existence on youtube. All of your "Points" don't go anywhere. It feels like someone fell asleep in between every sentence of the script and their general excuse for everything is "These other people said that its different so because they work at this super cool university they must be right" and this seems to be the route that "dissent from Darwinism" takes as well. Here it is described as "a thousand phds from just about every scientific field from around the world" Okay cool so that means that someone who studied volcanic activity signed on this? How does that help your case at all? Just flashing peoples names like its evidence or dare you say "Proof" isn't scientifically backing it just makes me want to crush my head more then I already do so I don't have to listen to this.
    In fact your whole reasoning behind saying "its false" is that there are "three fields that point towards some higher power designing them" and aside from being one of the most intellectually dishonest and aggravating things I've ever had molest my ears, the entirety of the selection focuses on things that those fields have achieved in some way. Actually that's not completely true, all of these sections end with their point being "These things act like they do because they abide by "Laws" (whoa quotes inside of quotes i better calm down here) and since people make laws then some higher power must have made the "Laws" to the universe" this is both manipulative and dumb (I would use stronger language but I want people to see this comment and not have it end up in some spam folder somewhere.) as it preys on what we are unable to prove at this point of time and if that is the best argument that you have then your frail argument will dissolve if the answers to why these things act in this way are ever discovered, which News Flash! They Will Be. Your "Higher being" is a slowly rotting god that hides in the spaces that we have not discovered yet.

    So am I here to comment this if I obviously don't like this video? Well boys and girls, ladies and gentlemen, enemies and allies, myself and everyone else: This video appeared as an ad over a song in my "My mix" and so being the person to want to hear the entirety of all sides of a story I came and watched this video, the entire thing and found myself in complete bewilderment after seeing that the majority of my brain cells responsible for faith in humanity were turned into saliva and sweat. My only regret is that I gave this video about 10 minutes of watch time in needing to rewatch it to construct this comment.
    P.S. If you are going to advertise your channel with a video make sure that video is both visually alluring, sounds good, and doesn't microwave the audience's grey matter.

  9. These arguments have been debunked and answered so many times. At this point one must conclude that these religious people must be very willing to lie to promote what they believes. Such dishonesty is not a a good representation of ones beliefs :/

  10. DNA, RNA, the fossil record, observable changes in genetics on current living habitats and species, etc… i mean you can google this shit.

  11. Just found your videos and they are excellent. I am myself a high school math and physics teacher and these are a few of the arguments that just make the theory of evolution crumble.
    Thanks for the great vid!

  12. There is only one argument for creationism, and that is giraffes. How else would their necks get so long unless God reached down and pulled? On each one? As for evolution, does anyone believe in electricity for example? That was also discovered by scientists based on evidence. Science means that everyone performing that experiment will get the same results. Now $trillions have gone into archaeology, and all the scientists got the same results, say the same thing. There are people whoo differ but they are not scientists, so we can't say scientists disagree on evolution. All scientists agree. The ones who disagree are religious people. Mind you their conviction is strong. For example, in the midwest U.S. it is understand that pollution is not a problem, because if it gets really bad Jesus will come back and clean up our mess. Religious people.

  13. Lol idiot evilutiomists think that tadpole become frogs! lol silly evilutionists you are crazy person haha! do you think you came from monkey?? ooh ooh ahh ahh no no you not come from monkey idiot you come from god silly evilutionist. thank you pastor god bless!!

  14. Yes. Unrequitedly and absolutely yes, science supports evolutionary theory. There is no contest about this. All of the members of The National Academy of Sciences hold that evolution is the best and most robust explanation for the diversity (NOT the origin) of life on Earth with myriad different streams of data to confirm this. To ask this question, do honest research and somehow not come up with a resounding YES is not only absurd, it's not possible.

  15. To dumb for science? Try religion.
    Greetings to all creationists or hagio creationists out there. Believing is so much easier than thinking yourselves.

  16. We know evolution is true. The theory of Evolution is one of the most solidly supported and best evidenced theories in science. There has been no altermative hypothesis since Lamarkism was disproven by Mendel. In recent years Phylogenetics has provided not only proof of evolution beyond doubt but has allowed us to date mutations and speciation events and correlate that data with the phylogeny analysis of the fossil record. To doubt evolution now is as futile as doubting the germ theory of disease or heliocentrism.

  17. Typical religious garbage. This video presents NO evidence and largely bases his arguments upon logic fallacies. For example the first half is just one big appeal to authority logic fallacy using a smidgen of dissenting scientists. The video also makes several assumptions which are not true. For example he states at 3:50 that the current cell components as we know them have to present at the onset for life to be sustained. There is no evidence of that. In fact organelles like mitochondria have been shown to be the result of symbiosis event between an earlier eurokaryotic cell and cyanobacteria.

    Creationists are some of the most scientifically illiterate and obtuse people you can meet. They are on par with flat earthers. Anyone that objectively looks at the plethora of evidence comes to the rational conclusion that not only has evolution occurred in the past, it is ongoing even in humans.

  18. 4 counter points to this video/ad.
    1. While there is a sizable demographic of scientists that dont believe in evolution, they almost have a religious predisposition and therefore have confirmation bias.
    2. Argueing that our universe was intelligently designed just because we've designated one point as our "beginning" is a fallacy, especially when adding in the fine tuning arguement which only works on the assumption that our universe could not have been formed in any way other then the way it is now.
    3. Argueing that because the laws of physics are consistent they must be intelligently implemented is not a must, especially when theres the possibility that there could be exceptions to the laws that make them not consistent that we don't even know about yet.
    4. Stating that a simple cell could not have existed through evolution because its parts needed to already exist to survive only works if we assume that's the earliest stage of life when it's much more likely that it's just the earliest form we know of.
    I hope this helps anyone who stumbles onto this through an ad like I did and I'll be checking to see if it gets removed 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back To Top