The Faults of Evolution: Why (Macro) Evolution Isn’t Logical

A topic we might hear about pretty often in science class is evolution. Biology class last year was hard for me sometimes because the teacher was extra passionate about the things I didn’t believe in, including evolution. 

She implied that people who didn’t believe in the theory of evolution were uneducated or ignorant. But just because Christians don’t believe the same things about evolution doesn’t mean we’re ignorant. 

We believe that God created every kind of living thing individually and uniquely. We don’t all have one common ancestor that mutated and evolved to form all of the species we see today. Though we believe this because of the Bible, there is science that proves evolution wrong, too. 

The Theory of Evolution

There are two types of evolution: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is when species have small changes or mutations over time. Macroevolution is when mutations result in a big change, like one species turning into another. 

Something many believe today is that every living thing has one common ancestor that evolved into all of the kinds of animals we have today. That’s evolution taken too far. 

Microevolution has been observed. For example, scientists have observed that finches in different areas developed different beak shapes to adapt to the kind of prey in their environment. They were mutated from the original finch species. 

But macroevolution—one thing turning into another—has never been observed. Though finches have turned into different species of finches, no one has seen a finch turn into a goldfish. And though monkeys and humans may be similar in some ways, a monkey becoming a human has never been seen.

The scientific method depends on observation. Scientists observe a phenomenon and test it over and over again. If the same result is produced each time, then the scientists can make a conclusion. 

But the idea that living things all have one common ancestor is not testable or observable. 

No one can observe the beginning of the world or how humans and other kinds of animals came to be. Christians have reason to believe the Bible’s account of creation is true. But since no one can observe the world’s creation, no one can scientifically prove one creation theory. 

The Faults of Evolution

The theory of evolution, though not always presented this way, actually has many faults. Here are some of them. 

#1 – Something simple cannot mutate into something very complex.

Scientists who support the theory of evolution often also state that the first life on Earth was bacteria or some other microorganism. But if bacteria evolved into many different kinds of animals, a problem arises. 

How could an organism like bacteria (which doesn’t contain the genetic code humans need) become something more complex that has parts the bacteria doesn’t contain?

Though bacteria is still complex, it is less complex than humans. And mutations can accidentally remove information from a genetic code, but they can’t add information. How could bacteria get the building blocks needed to mutate into more complex organisms? They can’t have appeared out of nowhere. 

#2 – Macroevolution relies on many singular changes over time.

For something to become another thing, it must have undergone a lot of changes and mutations. 

The Darwinistic theory of evolution relies on one change happening at a time. However, what if there are genes or traits that would have had to have simultaneous mutations to be created and kept?

In natural selection, if a mutation benefits a population, those with the mutation will (usually) survive and pass on the mutated gene. But what if a mutation does no good until it is combined  with many other mutations to form a specific trait? The mutation might not stay. 

Even Charles Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” (The Origin of Species).

#3 – Living things don’t come from nonliving things.

Even the simplest life is amazingly complex. How did the first complex life form come to be if it wasn’t from a creator? The law of biogenesis states that living things come from other living things. 

I love this analogy: if you were walking through the forest and found a watch, would you assume that it came to be from natural forces or that someone intelligent put it together?

A watch implies that there was a watchmaker who made it. In the same way, creation points to a creator. 

The idea that life on Earth was created by chance isn’t that believable to me. The conditions on Earth are perfectly suited for life, and life seems too complex to be created by chance. The probability that everything turned out the way it is because of a random chance is really small. 

Going Deeper

If you want more resources about why evolution is wrong, these are the sources I used while writing this article: 

The Reason for God by Timothy Keller can also be a helpful resource, though it’s not specifically about evolution or creation.

The next time you’re sitting through Biology class while learning about evolution, you can not only know the truth that God created everything, but you can also know some of the reasons why macroevolution is wrong. 

It’s important to remember, however, that the main issue is not whether or not evolution is true. The main issue is whether or not the gospel is true. 

Someone who doesn’t believe in evolution but also hasn’t put their faith in Jesus is still lost. Our job isn’t to judge, but it’s to spread the good news as much as we can, and to stand firm in the faith that we have.

12 responses to “The Faults of Evolution: Why (Macro) Evolution Isn’t Logical”

  1. Hypothetically speaking, if someone asks why humans have tailbones/ other bones that are useless to the human body, how do I respond to that?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That’s a really good question. Would you mind giving me some time to respond well?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Sure!


      2. Hi Yasimetwins, may I give a short answer? According to the term “vestigial organs”, the human tailbone is apparently useless to the human body; however, like many organs that seemed vestigial (the spleen, wisdom teeth, and goosebumps for examples), the “tailbone” is technically named the *coccyx* and is necessary for balance and when a baby is developing in his/her mother’s womb. As creationists, we shouldn’t be concerned that some organs may have lost their functions due to degeneration after the fall. However, we do reject that those organs are the result of random mutations or that they are derived from ‘common ancestors’, and that they do not serve any purpose, even if we haven’t figured that out yet. Also, there is a genetic term called autosomal domincance meaning a trait can be taken from even just one parent (like the point on the end of some people’s ears). However, there are some autosomal dominace-gained traits that aren’t beneficial or functional, like Parkinson’s disease.

        Also to Isabella: Nice to finally meet you! Another reason evolution cannot be true is the second law of thermodynamics. Things that are disorganized cannot become organized over time and in fact, lose energy instead of gaining it. As you pointed out, nonliving things cannot create living things. In addition, there is no known process by which new genetic information can be added to the genetic code of an organism and so there’s no way for an organism to change kinds (e.g. from dog to fish). Have a great day and God bless you!

        Liked by 2 people

      3. That was a great explanation Thomas! And I like your point about thermodynamics. I was going to say something similar Yasmine—when I started researching it I found sources that said the tailbone actually is useful. One website I found says it helps keep our organs in place, and Thomas pointed out that it helps with balance, too. Overall I think it’s important to remember that God creates with a purpose. Thank you for your thoughtful question! (Also, I can send you some of the websites I found if you want :))

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Thank you for your replies! I might have to research more about those topics, it sounds really interesting.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. In the biology course I’m taking, we are working on evolution and, I agree, it’s a frustrating (all of my family is passionate about science and because of this I’ve grown up hearing reasons for and against evolution).

    However, one thing I would suggest is not using the fact that evolution is a “theory” to disprove it. The meaning of the word theory in science is different from the word theory in other instances. In science there is no absolute truth because we cannot know everything. Instead of calling something a fact or a true explanation of the way things work, we call it a theory.

    Overall, good post!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’m sorry, for some reason your comment went to spam and I didn’t see it until now. Thank you for your suggestion – that’s a good point and I changed that part of the article because of it. Thanks for the thoughtful comment! =D

      Liked by 1 person

  3. […] The Faults of Evolution: Why (Macro) Evolution Isn’t Logical […]


  4. I enjoyed reading your piece and it provided me with a lot of value.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. […] something that isn’t true at some point. For example, in science class you might be taught that every organism evolved from one common ancestor—a generally accepted theory. In these situations, we need discernment to identify what ideas are […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: