An Argument of Incredulity

Normally I’m pretty quick to spot the logical fallacies used by evolutionists when they defend their position. Conversely, I try to avoid using any of these flawed arguments when defending my own position. However, there is still one argument I turn to every now and then even though it may technically be a logical fallacy – it is the argument of incredulity.

Basically, the argument of incredulity says that if something seems too fantastic, then it can’t be true. Imagine if you told someone that the sun is as large as 1.3 million earths and he answered, “I don’t believe it; nothing can be that big” – he has not really said anything that proves the sun is not that big. He’s only stated his disbelief.

But when it comes to evolution (cosmological & biological), there are some things that are truly too incredible to believe. They defy all logic and understanding. Yes, I’ll even say they are impossible. Let’s look at a few of the incredible claims made by evolution.

First is the origin of matter/energy. Where did it come from? Matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed - yet here it is. If matter/energy was not created by God, and since it exists, it must have either created itself or be eternal. Both options are simply impossible.

Assuming that science will someday explain the origin of matter/energy, it next must explain the origin complex systems. According to the second law of thermodynamics, things in a closed system (like the universe) should become less complex over time. This agrees perfectly with the Bible – God created a perfect universe and it’s becoming worse over time (Psalm 102:25-27). But the Big Bang cosmology argues that the universe began as expanding hydrogen, became heavier atoms, arranged itself into stars, then galaxies, and has become more complex over time – the exact opposite of what we should expect in a closed system.

Then there is the origin of life. Where did life come from? Louis Pasteur disproved all notions of spontaneous generation held up to his day. Since then, we’ve never observed a single example of life coming from non-living matter (either naturally or by design). Yet evolution demands that abiogenesis must have occurred in the distant past. So, in spite of not having a single example of abiogenesis, evolutionists still argue that it happened. Of course, evolutionists dismiss this point and accuse creationists of believing in a “god of the gaps.” Rather, I say they are resorting to special pleading.

If scientists ever get past the impossible hurdle of the origin of life without God, they still must demonstrate that reproducing organisms can acquire novel traits. The supposed first organism did not have skin, scales, hair, feathers, bones, blood, organs, etc. For a molecule to become a man, it had to ACQUIRE traits all along the way. Now, we see animals losing traits all the time. Please show me animals acquiring traits. Until I see it, I refuse to believe it happens.

But even if there were some examples of organisms acquiring traits, some systems within animals require several components to be in place at the same time for the animal to survive. The giraffe’s neck is one example; besides a long neck, the heart has to be able pump blood up the long neck to the brain. Then the giraffe needs a complex system of blood vessels that restrict the flow when it lowers its head. Also, because of the long necks, giraffe calves are born feet first and fall from the mother standing up. All of these different systems, and many others, had to be in place at the same time in order for a giraffe to have a long neck. Which came first then? The long neck? It could not have survived until the circulatory system adapted to it. The high blood pressure? It would have had a stroke every time it drank. The breech birth? In many cases the mother or offspring die during a breech birth yet a head-first giraffe birth would break the calf's neck. What are the odds of all these coming together at the same time? And as staggering as those odds are, it had to happen over and over in every single living organism.

Still other traits are counter-productive to evolution. Female worker ants, for example, are sterile. Ants have a very complex social structure where sterility plays a role. Yet sterile animals cannot reproduce. Please explain to me how the trait of sterility evolved? I mean, once the animal becomes sterile, it cannot pass that trait along to its offspring. Right?

And please show me exactly how asexual organisms became sexual organims. I don't believe it can happen.

These are just a handful of things evolution fails to explain. Evolutionism requires these and many other things to have happened yet has no feasible explanation for them – let alone evidence. Yet even though all of these things seem impossible, and many of them lack even a shred of evidence, people still believe it happened: mountains and mountains of impossibility heaped on top of each other –all seeming to defy simple deduction and observation. I’m sorry but I just can’t believe it. My faith is just not that strong!