If You Believe in Evolution . . .
Evolution teaches that random beneficial mutations are beneficial and therefore improve an organism's chances of survival. These random mutations are supposed to perpetuate the mutated organism and eventually create a new species.
Purely accidental and random beneficial mutations are supposed to have produced all plants and animals on earth. And survival of the fittest is supposed to have resulted in the death of the weak and left the world to the strong. That is all that evolution is. Chance creates, death destroys and the strong survive and reproduce. According to evolution, random chance is the sole mechanism for the creation of the strong and the survival of the fittest is the sole mechanism for the elimination of the weak.
So, if you believe in evolution, then:
- You believe that a series of perhaps millions of random beneficial mutations created the code for and the correct description of 100,000 specific human proteins, and wrote their formulae into a non-physical code (a language) that is 3,000,000,000 letters long and inscribed it upon a molecule (the DNA molecule).
It has been said that the DNA molecule 
is equivalent to inscribing the Encyclopedia Britannica upon a molecule. However, in actual fact, this comparison is inaccurate. It is more accurate to say that it is equivalent to inscribing 20 Encyclopedia Britannicas upon a molecule (click here to see the basis for this argument).
These 3,000,000,000 (or, arguably 6,000,000,000) letters are used to provide intricate instructions for combining particular atoms and molecules in the proper sequence to manufacture the 100,000 specific human proteins. They are chemical formula encoded into a language that has no physical representation of the molecules that it describes. It is a code.
If you are an evolutionist, you believe that not only the proteins, but also the instructions for the assembly of the proteins were formed by thousands of chance changes (accidents). And you believe this even though each protein performs a different function that is intricately wedded to a particular requirement of the human body. All of these functions are complementary and all of the 100,000 proteins that make them possible must be produced constantly and in the right proportions and all of these proteins must work in harmony.
Of course, no single protein is of any use at all by itself, but if you are a true evolutionist, perhaps that fact is of no moment to you. Because if you are truly an evolutionist, there is no infinity of impossibilities that is sufficient to convince you that anything but accidents and survival of the fittest produced an incomprehensible organization down to stores of critical information written into the arrangements of the atoms in a molecule. In fact, even if the chances of just the enzymes occurring by chance were 1 in all of the atoms of the universe (see below), a true evolutionist would not believe that anything but chance and survival of the fittest produced them.
- You believe that the death of inferior animals somehow directed the improvement of a species.
But you know that the deaths of inferior animals can do nothing to create superior changes. All death does is to destroy changes. You know that the death of inferior animals may in some cases, but certainly not all, destroy inferior changes. But it can do nothing to create superior changes. Only chance can do that. So, if you believe in evolution, then you believe that all changes, good and bad, occurred by random chance alone. Evolution argues that the removal of the inferior made way for the superior, but nowhere does evolution teach that anything but random chance produced the changes in the first place.
Evolution leaves no room for God or "God directed" evolution.
- If you believe in evolution, you believe that somehow 1,000,000,000,000,000 individual neurological connections that perform the functions of the human brain randomly came together through a series of accidental mutations in just the right arrangement. This translates into the accidental manufacture of a hard-wired electrical network containing approximately the same number of organized connections as there are leaves on the trees in a forest that is half the size of the United States. That is a forest approximately the size of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran combined. Or the size of Continental Europe or twice the size of India.
"In terms of complexity, an individual cell is nothing when compared with a system like the mammalian brain. The human brain consists of about ten thousand million nerve cells. Each nerve cell puts out somewhere in the region of between ten thousand and one hundred thousand connecting fibres by which it makes contact with other nerve cells in the brain. Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches 1015 or a thousand million million.
"Numbers in the order of 1015 are of course completely beyond comprehension. Imagine an area about half the size of the USA (one million square miles) covered in a forest of trees containing ten thousand trees per square mile. If each tree contained one hundred thousand leaves, the total number of leaves in the forest would be 1015, equivalent to the number of connections in the human brain!"
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton (Adler & Adler, 1985), p 330. Dr. Michael Denton is a Australian molecular biologist and medical doctor who has lived and worked in London, Toronto and Sydney and who is best known for his biological research (emphasis supplied).
That is the equivalent of trillions upon trillions of minute wires connecting all of those leaves to form an incomprehensibly complex network that produces thought. It is simply irrational to believe that this occurred through beneficial chance mutations (that have never been observed) and dying animals.
One cannot begin to explain this kind of complexity by arguing that DNA is similar in similar species, that pelvic bones of birds look like pelvic bones of raptors or that an electric spark through a carbon liquid produces something that might be a protein.
One should not leave his common sense in the hall when he enters the biology classroom. Open your eyes and look. Think. They are teaching you that chance mutations and dying animals produced the human brain: that is .951 perfectly formed in place and organized neuro-connections evolving each minute for two billion years -- and that is assuming no mistakes. Do the math yourself. That simply cannot have happened - no matter how much one wishes to believe it.
This calculates into a rate of evolution of approximately 1 perfected and installed mutation every minute for 2,000,000,000 years with each one fully integrated, fully connected, timed properly and fully functional.
It is simply unreasonable to argue that this was created by happenstance and the death of inferior animals.
More about the Circuits of the Brain
- Inside of the cell, you believe that random mutations also produced a device that copies a precise segment of a DNA molecule for the express purpose of producing a particular protein. The segment is approximately 1/100,000th of the length of the DNA molecule. The copy bears no physical resemblance whatever to the molecule that it will be used to manufacture. It is nothing but pure code, pure logic. And the logic is separate from the arrangement of the atoms that carry the code - like the information contained on this page is separate from the pixels on your computer screen. It is separate in the same way that a chemical formula written on 4 pages of an encyclopedia is separate from the type and the ink on the pages. The type and the ink is of little relevance. It is the logic, the meaning conveyed by the ink that carries the substance, not the ink itself. This meaning and the logic and the structure of the code that conveys the meaning is non-physical and therefore not subject to to any mutation.
Inside the cell, a copy of the code is transferred to another device, which is operated through another encoded mechanism that reads the meaning of the code and then retrieves the necessary atoms and molecules described by the code and assembles them in the proper sequence to produce the protein molecule that the code describes. So we find one accidentally formed code reading another accidentally formed code to enable every cell in your body to constantly manufacture (molecule by molecule) all of the 100,000 different protein molecules that you need.
If you are an evolutionist, you believe that all of this was created by happenstance and dying animals. And if you believe this, then perhaps you will believe anything.
And yet, this is nothing in comparison to the design of memory.
More about the Codes Within the Cells
- If you are an evolutionist, you believe that random chance produced a system for storing the memories of a lifetime into the electrical arrangement of the individual molecules in your brain. This arrangement is another undecipherable non-physical digital code. You believe that this non-physical digital code "grew" along side of the method for storing memories. You don't know how it did it, but you are sure that it did it by millions of beneficial mutations.
There are trillions upon trillions of these molecules that hold the code that records the memories of a lifetime. And when a living molecular computer indexed them all, the evolutionist says to himself, 
"My how fortunate that these same accidents that produced a method to record memory also happened to produce a mechanism that indexes trillions upon trillions of encoded molecules just so we can recall what we wish at the whim of a thought!"
And when you wonder how a thought can instantly locate the exact code written upon an ocean of molecules, you are amazed at the skill of "Mother Nature" - who must be out there somewhere.
And when you find this logic to be weakening under the ponderous weight of common sense, you have only to ponder the skull of Lucy. Surely that proves that trillions upon trillions of organized electrical connections operating in perfect sequence must have evolved. Perhaps your deepest thought is this, "Since they exist, they must have evolved. Because the alternative explanation is theologically incorrect."
- If you believe in evolution, you believe that a device that captures a pattern of light and then separates it into 12 million electrical signals "occurred" by means of the natural action of time and chance mutations. These 12 million constantly changing electrical signals - by fiat of pure accident - are another extremely complicated digital code that "grew" until it could convey moving images and millions of different colors.
You believe that this code was composed by a series of accidents and by chance it is transmitted to a living electrical processor that, also by means of a series of accidents, knows the same code and is equipped to translate it instantly.
This processor simultaneously reads 12 million constantly changing electrical signals and produces the perception of an extremely a high resolution three dimensional moving color picture and it does this in the space of nanoseconds, such that there is no perceptible delay between the action and the perception of the action.
Some of these devices work for more than a century without stopping. Fortunately, this device was somehow connected to another device that stores these pictures into memory and conveys the entire sequence rather than just the colors of the particular optic nerve endings. It also indexes them. It can all be fully explained by the simplicity: "All those that didn't have this died."
Do you really believe that survival of the fittest and accidental change adequately explains what honest science has observed?
Perhaps you question it. Perhaps you are saying to yourself, "I know that I am supposed to believe this but I definitely question it." You are restating the quintessential element of modern evolutionary theory: You are supposed to believe it, but it is far from proven.
So, why do you choose to believe it? Chances are that you choose to believe it because the alternative is even more unreasonable: there is a Creator. Of course, if one accepts evolution as a fact because one does not believe in a Creator, then one's belief in evolution is based upon a theological conviction, not a demonstrated scientific fact.
This is not honest science. Honest science looks at the observed facts and moves toward truth, no matter what personal anathema that truth may be to the scientist.
Not many have the courage to say that the evidence of honest science points to a Creator. So, they simply acquiesce into silence and relinquish their integrity to expediency. Or they remain true evolutionists because they are, at heart, athiests, and evolution is far more compatible with their metaphysical persuasion.
Hypothetical Falsifiability
Have you ever noticed that evolution is the the simple answer to virtually everything?
It theorizes incremental changes, but when it finds no real evidence of incremental changes, the argument shifts: We see no incremental changes now because evolution is so effective it has perfected everything. When we question how the brain of a honeybee can best a supercomputer, evolution responds that the honeybee is just one more piece of evidence showing how effective evolution is.
When we point out that there are masses of non-physical codes that are used to intelligently communicate between organs and between different parts of the brain, evolution responds that non-physical logic just evolved right along with the physical uses of that logic and we know that because no one questions that the logic - and the codes - are indeed there.
When we point out that there are thousands upon thousands of complex chemical formulae for proteins inscribed into the the arrangement of the atoms in a DNA molecule - by use of an alphabet - evolution has an answer. Mutations! Survival of the fittest! Ain't Mother Nature amazin'?
As a matter of fact, evolution is so pervasive in its application it cannot be falsified within its own scope. Perhaps the only way to falsify it is to move outside of its scope and argue that the very design in nature points to a Creator. But evolution has an answer for that too, and that answer is that evolution just does not deal with creators; don't even try it.
So, no matter how you cut it, evolution, within its own scope, is simply not hypothetically falsifiable.
The primary characteristic of a logically inadequate theory is that it is not hypothetically falsifiable. That is, if one has a theory that one cannot hypothetically falsify, the theory is logically useless.
On the other hand, the theory of intelligent design is quite hypothetically falsifiable. One can falsify it by showing that nature does not contain significant intelligent design, or by showing that it is haphazard and filled with half developed eyes (still useless eyes) or developing feet or feathers or that beneficial mutations are commonplace. But that is not what is observed.
Evolution could be disproven by showing the absence of order, by showing an absence of haphazard changes and a superabundance of intricate organization that could never have occurred by a series of accidents, so there must be a Creator. One could argue that to a Darwinist, but unfortunately Darwinists simply do not deal with creators, so evolution has no challenger.
Therefore evolution is not hypothetically falsifiable by arguing intelligent design, and intelligent is really the only argument around right now.
Evolution as a theory is therefore inadequate because it is, by it own limits and and its own admission, not hypothically falsifiable.