2009 is the 150th anniversary of the introduction of the Theory of Evolution through the publication of Origin of Species by Charles Darwin in 1859.

 

No, it is the 150th anniversary of Darwin's publication of his book "Origin of Species" in which he set out the theory of natural selection which he first brought to scientific attention in a joint paper with Wallace in 1858.

 

 

 

That evolution happens was accepted long before Darwin's day. The French claim Lamarck as the originator of evolutionary theory

 

Darwin's theory became the basis for a belief system - a new 'religion' called evolution - allowing for an explanation for our existence independent from God.

 

Evolutionary theory is not a religious belief, and although some have argued that it allows one to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist", it does not mean that all evolutionary biologists are atheists

 

In evolution, the entire universe is considered to have evolved by natural processes

 

No, that is a fundamenatal assumption of science. All scientific theories are based on the premise of naturalism.

 

and random selection into its present state of high organization and complexity.

 

Random selection? If it's selected, it can't be random! In any case, the origin of the universe is not part of evolutionary theory, and no cosmologist or physicist has ever proposed that it came into its present state by "random selection" (whatever the hell that means).

 

In this model the universe began in a state of pure randomness.

 

What model? Scientists think that the universe - which includes time and space - originated in the "Big Bang". It originated as a singularity - which is about as far from "pure randomness" as it is possible to be.

 

Gradually it has by "survival of the fittest" become more ordered and complex.

 

Complete and utter nonsense! "Survival of the fittest" is a concept in evolutionary biology, not cosmology.

 

In order for the complex structure of the universe to have been produced by present natural processes, a vast amount of time was required.

 

Actually, a study of the universe shows that it originated very long ago - about 14 billion years. This is not a requirement of naturalism, but a conclusion reached from the evidence.

 

This all sounds logical

 

No, this sounds utterly illogical and deeply confused. Just as well that it bears no relationship whatsoever to the findings of science.

 

and as over the last 150 years more and more bright minds have endorsed it, taught it and further developed it, a majority of people now seems to believe that evolution is true and that the alternative - that God created us and our world - is false and only still believed by the 'uneducated' and 'gullible'.

 

Accepting the findings of science in respect of evolution are not an alternative to religious faith, as is shown by the fact that many scientists are deeply religious, and that many, if not most, Christians see no conflict between their faith and science.

 

However the 'case' for evolution is far from watertight.

 

That evolution occurs is so firmly established that no honest scientist doubts that it is a phenomenon of nature.

 

It seems actually to be more like a boat full of holes which - despite desperate efforts by evolutionists to keep on pumping - is slowly but surely sinking! Modern day science reveals massive problems, like (just to name a few):

 

That evolution happens is a fact, and evolutionary theory provides an explanation for how evolution works. It is one of the most robust and exhaustively tested theories in any field of science.

 

1) The beginning needed a Creator. If there ever was a Big Bang - who or what caused it to happen? How can something (a lot, actually everything) come from nothing? Wild theories like the completely unproven evolutionary string theory require a lot more 'faith' than accepting a Creator God.

 

This has nothing whatsoever to do with evolutionary theory, which is a theory of how populations of living organisms change over successive generations.

 

2) Earth is a truly privileged planet. Chances of finding a similar habitable planet like Earth suited for life in our Milky Way galaxy or even in the entire universe are practically zero.

 

A completely unfounded assertion. We lack the technology to find life even on our closest planetary neighbours.

 

3) First Life. Modern science has reached the unanimous conclusion that life on a planet like earth could not have started by mere chance.

 

Flatly false. No scientist has ever suggested that life arose by "pure chance", which means that there can be no "unanimity" that it could not have happened.

 

The complex building blocks of the simplest living cell proteins, DNA and molecular machines do not allow for random assembly even through long periods of time.

 

No scientists has ever suggested such a ridiculous scenario

 

Despite decades of intense research, origin-of-life scientists have found no evolutionary explanation to explain how life could have started by natural processes alone.

 

Research into abiogenesis is not guided by evolutionary theory. It's a different field of science. The fact that abiogenesis occurred a long time ago and involved fragile organic molecules may mean that we will never have a robust theory of abiogenesis. However, that is no reason to abandon science.

 

4) No mechanism for species to evolve.

 

As we have observed speciation events in nature and replicated them in the laboratory, and that mutation and natural selection provide a mechanism for speciation, this is simply a blatant falsehood.

 

Natural selection is just variation within a species.

 

Natural selection is one element of evolutionary theory, and has been observed in action in natural populations leading to speciation.

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25

 

 

 

Genetic mutations are required to evolve from one species into the next, however mutations are not common and mostly neutral.

 

Mutations are relatively common - humans carry over 100 .

 

If they happen, they are almost always harmful not beneficial.

 

So having said that they are mostly neutral, he is now contradicting what he wrote in the previous sentence and saying that they are almost always harmful!

 

The occurrence of many small, beneficial steps of mutations is against all odds and has never been observed.

 

It has been observed and measured, and has been reported in numerous scientific papers.

 

5) The fossil record. There are no intermediate species in the fossil record

 

Flatly false. There are numerous transitional fossils recording the evolutionary links between most major clades. One of the first such forms to be discovered was Archaeopteryx, only a few years after Darwin published origin. No creationist has ever given a rational reason why it should not be considered and intermediate form.

 

According to Darwin's theory of evolution, species would evolve to more complex new species by a series of gradual mutations.

 

Darwin's theory does not imply that evolution must lead to increasing complexity.

 

However, despite of over 100+ years of extensive studies of the fossil record, no intermediate species have been discovered.

 

Intemediate species such as Tiktaalik were not only predicted by evolutionary theory, but were discovered where evolutionary theory and palaeogeography predicted we should find them.

 

On the contrary, the Cambrian Explosion shows the almost "overnight" appearance of the body plans of all modern day life forms at about the same moment in time.

 

The "Cambrian explosion" took place over a period of at least 30, and possibly 100 million years. We have increasingly detailed evidence from the Ediacaran whose faunas show forms ancestral to those of the Cambrian.

 

So, WHY still believe all this? Why does the scientific world still want to convince us - after 150 years of unsuccessful looking for answers - that evolution is THE theory that explains our existence or is even a FACT?

 

Evolutionary theory does not seek to explain our existence. It is a theory in biology about how populations of organisms change over successive generatations. It is the only scientfic theory which explains our biological origins.

 

I believe the answer is simple. Evolution has become a religion

 

You may "believe that", but it is flatly untrue.

 

Its adherents have based their personal convictions, values and above all comfortable lifestyle on this idea that we are just the product of time and chance

 

Comfortable lifestyle? I wish! In any case, no scientist has ever suggested that we are "just the product of time and chance".

 

We are just an 'accident' and there is no God.

 

The fact that many evolutionary biologists also believe in God, and that the heads of churches representing the majority of the world's Christians accept the findings of science respect of evolution shows that this is flatly false.

 

Therefore we can do what we want and when we want it, because we are not accountable to anybody.

 

I have never come across anyone who uses evolutionary theory to justify their actions in this way. I have however come across creationist who think that they are free to do anything they like without consequences because they are "once saved, always saved".

 

We are our own gods and we should live life to achieve maximum pleasure.

 

See above.

 

Because evolution has become like a religion its adherents are also not really interested to be open-minded for criticism or alternative explanations.

 

Evolution is not a religion, and evolutionary scientists are perfectly willing to be offered alternative explanations for the evidence. They are not however much interested in the same, tired old stream of outright falsehoods peddled by creationists - the contents of this article being typical of such garbage.

 

"What do you mean that you want to challenge the concepts of evolution? It is a fact, so we do not need to prove it anymore!

 

It is a fact that evolution happens. Evolutionary theory is an explanation of how it happens. As is the case with all theories in all fields of science, it is held to be provisional and subject to revision or rejection if that is what the evidence demands. Science doesn't offer proof.

 

On a personal note - I was taught the theory of evolution in high school. It was not even presented to me as a theory but as a fact. Only very limited evidence was presented. and because of it I lost my interest in God and Christianity. Now I know I was duped, I was deceived. Only when life presented me with an interest and an opportunity to do my own research at a later stage of my life I discovered that it was a lie. But I had to discover that myself. I had to dig myself into science to find the gaps and faulty patches. I just wish that during my school and college years one of my teachers would have been more objective and at least would have told me that the theory of evolution is not a fact and shown me the alternative view of Intelligent Design of Creation. That way I could have made my own decision about what to believe earlier in my life.

 

When I read this sort of statement coming from creationists, I find it very hard to believe that they are telling the truth. This article peddles such a distorted version of evolutionary theory that it is very obvious that whatever education he had, it was very poor indeed. He confuses evolutionary theory - which is a theory in biology - with theories of the origin of the universe, which have nothing to do with biology. He seems to conflate evolutionary theory with naturalism, which is a fundamental assumption to all science. At best the author has had an egregiously poor scientific education, at worst is simply lying to promote his case.