The Grand Theory of Evolution continues to fail as a predictive model when scientists are actually allowed to use data rather than assumptions and extrapolations.

Dennis Venema is professor of biology at Trinity Western University, and he has written some articles that claim evolution to be verified by the data.

Interesting, because when the research is analyzed, what it shows is the exact opposite.

So that you don’t have to read the entire article, here are a few snippets from the researchers:

If the evidence can confirm evolution, then it also can disconfirm evolution.

What does it say? …for it seems that what the science shows is that Venema’s claim, that the genetic evidence confirms evolutionary predictions, is inaccurate.

For starters, phylogenetic incongruence is rampant in evolutionary studies. Genetic sequence data do not fall into the expected evolutionary pattern. Conflicts exist at all levels of the evolutionary tree and throughout both morphological and molecular traits. This paper reports on incongruent gene trees in bats. That is one example of many.

In fact one evolutionist, who has studied thousands of microRNA genes, explained that he has not found “a single example that would support the traditional [evolutionary] tree.” It is, another evolutionist admitted, “a very serious incongruence.”

It is not unusual for similar species to have significant differences in their genome. These results have surprised evolutionists and there does not seem to be any let up as new genomes are deciphered.

The prediction that the mouse and rat genomes would be highly similar made sense according to evolution. But it was dramatically wrong.

In other words, out of the 1,071 trees, there were zero matches. It was “a bit shocking” for evolutionists, as one explained: “We are trying to figure out the phylogenetic relationships of 1.8 million species and can’t even sort out 20 yeast.”

And although evolutionists thought that more data would solve their problems, the opposite has occurred. With the ever increasing volumes of data (particularly molecular data), incongruence between trees “has become pervasive.”

If the pattern fits the evolutionary tree, then it is explained as common evolutionary history. If not, then it is explained as common evolutionary forces.

With all of this contradictory evidence, even evolutionists have realized in recent years that the traditional evolutionary tree model is failing. As one evolutionist explained, “The tree of life is being politely buried.”

So, with all of this contradictory evidence, will people be persuaded to believe in a Creator instead? Probably not. Just more epicycles and sub-hypothesis are created to extend the evolutionary story.

Romans 1 tells us that there is sufficient evidence to believe that the Creator God is evident from what he has created, and there’s enough evidence to pass judgement on the unbeliever.

We can trust God’s Word in what it has revealed about our past, and we can therefore trust Him about our future.