Religion

“DNA: Written by God or Typed by really smart Chemicals?”

2025-07-05
John Keefe

 “5 Scientific Show-Stopper Challenges to Darwinian Evolution and Why an Intelligent Creator is the most Logical”

Intro: A Friendly Bet

“Let’s face it—Darwin’s theory might sound neat in a science class, but when you stack it up against data, holes start to appear faster than bacteria in a Petri dish. If you’re curious, skeptical, or just want a solid way to argue your point, I’ve got five rock-solid scientific critiques that punch holes in the Neo-Darwinian story.”

https://telegra.ph/Science-Based-Challenges-to-Darwinian-Evolution-07-05

  1. Origin of Functional Genetic Information
  • Challenge: Getting brand‑new genes isn’t just hard—it’s practically impossible by random mutation.
  • Why it matters: Look at Douglas Axe’s work—functional enzymes show up once in 10^77 sequences reddit.com+6pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov+6evolutionnews.org+6.
  • In short: If new proteins can’t randomly appear, new body parts like eyes, wings, or brains have no starting place.

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1/

  1. Mutations Break More Than They Build

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/misconceptions-about-natural-selection-and-adaptation/the-limitations-of-natural-selection/

  1. The Cambrian Explosion—Suddenly, Everything
  • Challenge: All major animal body plans pop up suddenly ~530 million years ago, with no evolutionary ancestors.
  • Evidence: Fossil beds like Burgess Shale and Chengjiang show fully formed creatures—no transitions pandasthumb.org+7reddit.com+7davidsloanwilson.world+7.
  • Bottom line: Expecting slow inching forward? That’s not what we find.

“As noted in a comprehensive Evolution News piece on the ‘Cambrian Explosion’ {CITATION_START}cite{CITATION_DELIMITER}turn0search0{CITATION_STOP}, nearly all major animal body plans appear over just 10–20 million years — geologically a blink of an eye. The fossil evidence from Burgess Shale and Chengjiang shows fully formed phyla without clear evolutionary ancestors — a glaring challenge to the slow-and-steady Darwinian model.”

  1. Genes Aren’t the Whole Story
  • Challenge: Developmental control—epigenetics, gene switches, protein networks—aren’t part of simple mutation theory.
  • Expert voice: “DNA is necessary, but not sufficient…” —Jonathan Wells evolutionnews.org+2youtube.com+2reddit.com+2
  • Big deal: If you ignore regulation layers, you miss where real complexity comes from.

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/11/epigenetics-directs-genetics-and-thats-a-problem-for-darwinism/

  1. Math Says It Can’t Happen Fast Enough
  • Challenge: Haldane’s Dilemma and population genetics math say beneficial mutations fix too slowly.
  • Real-world model: Sanford’s Genetic Entropy shows genomes degrade faster than they can build.
  • Result: The math doesn’t support Darwin’s timeline—even if organisms could evolve new organs, they wouldn’t do it fast enough.

“Clear mathematical modeling—like Rupe & Sanford’s numerical simulation of Haldane’s Ratchet—shows that even under ideal conditions, beneficial mutations fix too slowly for cumulative innovation. Meanwhile, harmful mutations accumulate faster than they can be weeded out. This leaves no realistic pathway for large-scale evolutionary transitions like fish-to-amphibian (turn0search0).” https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings/vol7/iss1/32/

 

Final Thought: Not a Knockout, but a Knockdown

None of these individually “prove” creationism—but put them all together and Neo-Darwinism looks… shaky.
The data doesn’t back the blind process story. That’s why scholars, scientists, and even some atheists are asking “Isn’t it time to consider intelligent design or alternative frameworks?”

📚 Key References

If the origin of complex information in DNA cannot be explained by undirected natural processes, what alternative source are we logically left with—and why is that so uncomfortable for some to admit?

Why do we call it science to believe that nothing created everything—but religion to   believe that intelligence was behind design?

If the fossil record shows sudden appearance rather than gradual transitions, and if mutations degrade more often than improve, why do we still treat Darwin’s theory as unquestionable dogma?

 

 

John Keefe

Article URL : https://breakingnewsandreligion.online/discuss/