The Verdict of Reason
In this segment we’ll turn our attention to one of the cornerstones of atheistic thought: Evolution. It is the Holy Grail of anti-God materialists. Evolution remains a sacred article of faith among its initiates – despite the growing evidence against it. As we examine this issue we’ll find that the Emperor has few if any clothes. Lucy’s got a lot of ‘splainin’ to do.
THE PROBLEMS WITH EVOLUTION
“Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind’; and it was so.” (Genesis 1:24)
Whatever Robert Locke might be he wants to make one thing perfectly clear: He does not buy into the literal Creation story promulgated in the Bible. Here then is the beginning of an article he wrote titled: The Scientific Case Against Evolution, which was published in 2001. “I AM NOT A CREATIONIST, and must confess that until recently, I treated people who questioned evolution with polite dismissal. But there has recently emerged a major trend in biology that has been suppressed in the mainstream media: evolution is in trouble. More importantly, this has absolutely nothing to do with religion but is due to the fact that the ongoing growth of biological knowledge keeps producing facts that contradict rather than confirm evolution.”[i] That, pretty much, will be the theme we will pursue today. So with limited space we will present just a cursory summary of just a few of the problems with Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary theory.
- Evolutionary Theory Can’t Explain the Origin of Life – We covered this in detail last time. It’s the ‘Really Big One’. There is no plausible theory of how life grew out of chemical soup. No matter how many billions of years you propose the chance remains essentially zero. As Geisler & Turek point out in their book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist: Darwinists “don’t even have an explanation for the source of non-living chemicals, much less an explanation for life.”[ii]
- The Problem of DNA – Casey Luskin points to the “lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information” that is contained in DNA. Then there is the question of where DNA came from. Science has been unable to explain the “high levels of complex and specified information” found in the genetic code.[iii]
- Limits to Evolutionary Change: Microevolution Yes! Macroevolution No! – According to evolutionary theory, mutations cause new information to enter the gene pool. Advantageous mutations then are reinforced by the mechanism of natural selection or the survival of the fittest. The surviving organisms will display the new characteristics dictated by the mutation and eventually, over countless generations, new organisms are formed. As Charles Darwin famously observed on the Galapagos Islands, the finches he saw there had beaks that adapted to the changing climatic conditions. Dry weather increased the population of finches with large beaks. It was easier to breakdown the hard seeds produced by that climate, (seeds being an essential part of their diet). In wetter weather, small-beaked finches increased. But that wasn’t macro-evolution. The changes were always cyclical. And the information that dictated beak size was already in the gene pool. You see, there are strict limits to change. Dogs remain dogs and finches keep on being finches. A couple of famous experiments have added to our understanding in this area. Scientists have conducted an experiment with fruit flies over hundreds of generations conducted over the course of three-and-one-half decades. “Instead of waiting for natural selection, researchers forced selection on hundreds of generations of fruit flies.” Yet they found that: “There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the limits of variation.”[iv] Researchers concluded that: “Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.”[v] Fruit flies remained fruit flies.Then there is the famous experiment begun by Dr Richard Lenski in 1988. It has followed the genetic development of over 60,000 generations of bacterium. But the observed changes produced only “disruption, degradation, or loss of genetic information…. Mutations that result in a gain of novel information have not been observed.”[vi] As Geisler and Turek summarized it: “The surviving bacteria always stay bacteria. They do not evolve into another type of organism. That would be macroevolution. Natural selection has never been observed to create new types.”[vii]
- The Problem of Irreducible Complexity – Charles Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.”[viii] Well, unfortunately for his theory, those complex organs have been found. In his book Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe defines Irreducible Complexity as “A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.”[ix] Robert Locke simplifies it for us. Evolution cannot explain “how anything could evolve that doesn’t make biological sense when incomplete. The wings of birds are the classic example: what good is half of one?”[x]
The more pressing problem for evolutionary theory is coming up with a mechanism that would get around this problem. Of what benefit to the organism is an eye that cannot yet see, or wings that cannot produce flight. How or why would an insentient nature choose for such as these?[xi] According to the law of natural selection, nature could only select for components that in themselves produced a definite survival advantage for the organism. A sightless eye or flightless wings would produce no such advantage. In fact, “nature would select against the continued production of the miscellaneous parts if they are not producing immediate benefits to the organism.” So how could the complex systems known to exist on all levels, from the molecular to the fully articulated organ systems ever be developed? Michael Behe in Darwin’s Black Box argues exhaustively that it could not. Behe shows that on the molecular level, the information required by the complexity of the process requires more than a mere chemical reaction. Complex information screams design.[xii] It is in Behe’s phrase, “irreducibly complex.” This describes a system that has several interacting components, the removal of any one of which would result in its failure. Behe uses the example of an everyday mousetrap. Remove a part and it is useless. Not any single part would catch any mice. It is the whole system that is necessary to make the system operable. In the natural, a system would have to be chosen in the whole. It could not logically be the result of countless, successive, miniscule modifications. It could not be the result of the Darwinian mechanism. Yet in nature so many of these systems do exist. Eyes and wings are but two examples. Each would have had to come into being as a unit.[xiii] This blows the theory of natural selection out of the water. Natural selection holds that each change must be useful. Each biological selection must give a survival advantage to the organism or it would not be selected. Behe argues convincingly in his thesis that so much of the cell life on the molecular level is in fact – irreducibly complex.[xiv]
All of these complex organs and functions would “require irreducibly complex systems that could not have developed in the gradual Darwinian fashion….Because the intermediaries would be nonfunctional,” and therefore not survive. As Geisler & Turek conclude: “Irreducible complexity means that new life cannot come into existence by the Darwinian method of slight, successive changes over a long period of time.”[xv]
- Transitional Forms Cannot Survive – Darwinists propose that reptiles became birds. But how would the transitional forms be able to function? A partially developed system of wings or feathers would not provide an evolutionary advantage. And further, no viable mechanism for that change has been proposed.[xvi]
- A Great Big Hole in the Fossil Record – Back in 1859 when Darwin first proposed his theory, he believed that fossil evidence collected in the ensuing years would fill the evidentiary gaps in his hypothesis. Unfortunately for Darwin the years have not served his theory well. As more and more fossils are gathered, it is becoming apparent that the intermediate forms just do not exist. Despite the ample and well organized record of fossil evidence available at this time there does not exist any evidence for either the traditional gradual theory of macro-evolution or the idea that ‘progress’ came in spurts. There are no forms that show that the basic body plans found during the Cambrian Explosion have altered or that new phyla have been built from earlier ones. Instead what the fossils do show is an existence throughout Earth’s history. When new species have been formed the change has come quickly. This flies in the face of a Darwinian theory that calls for gradual change with many intermediate forms, all progressing up the ladder of complexity. But this is just not the case. In numerous studies, whether concerning marine life or mammals, or mollusks no gradualism has been found. To the contrary, changes have been abrupt and have lacked the transitional forms linking organisms together. This can be seen most pointedly when studying the Cambrian Explosion, a period of time during which every major anatomical design seems to have appeared ‘simultaneously.’[xvii] The evidence is world-wide. Fossils have been found from Canada to Africa to China. Fully developed organs, jointed appendages, lungs and eyes all come upon the scene at once. The change from single celled simplicity to multi-celled complexity was abrupt.[xviii] Further, the various phyla making their appearance during the Cambrian period are unique to that time. For the overwhelming majority of the Cambrian animals no ancestry can be traced. There is no record of their gradual appearance. This phenomenon is an “expression of design” in that it assembled animal life into the 50 known phyla. Thirty-seven of these survive to this day. Significantly not one has been added. There is no evidence for the evolutionary mechanism to have worked since that time. It remains a great mystery why the subsequent changes in animal life have all been contained within the various phyla. And in the millions of fossil specimens existing today there has been found no transitional form. I cannot stress this enough. The ‘missing links’ are still missing.[xix] [xx]
- There Is NO Evolutionary Tree of Life – Computer analysis of the data has confirmed these conclusions. The computer models do not produce the neat ‘tree of life’ models long proposed in evolutionary circles. Analysis of the numerically encoded data solving for grouping animal life by the similarities and differences found, produces groupings that do not fit the evolutionary tree. Robert Locke, writing in an article for Front Page Magazine states, “When the computer is constrained to push the data into an evolutionary tree, it tends to generate trees with all species as individual twigs and no species forming the crucial lower branches of the tree that evolution demands.” Locke points out that the former characterization of evolutionary relationships between animals, are somewhat arbitrary at best. Concentrating on one set of animal characteristics may produce one set of relationships, while looking at another may make those same relationships seem entirely illogical. This is further confirmed by analyzing the thousands of proteins that make up living organisms. Examining life on this basic level shows the same distinctness among species, as do the computer models that organize life by anatomical characteristics.[xxi] There is no clear pattern of descent.
So let’s review some of the problems with the theory of Darwinian evolution. It rests on the notion that all life forms existent today are the result of infinitesimal changes across thousands of generations, as each adapted to the environmental conditions it was facing. The problem is, the fossil record does not support this. Instead it shows an explosion of life forms in the Cambrian period emerging compete and remaining unchanged.[xxii] Intelligent design proponent, William Dembski, summarizes the critique of Darwinism presented by Michael Denton in his book Evolution; A Theory in Crisis. The theory’s weakness are many he points out. They include “…the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, the origin of multi-cellular life, the origin of sexuality, the gaps in the fossil record, the biological big bang that occurred in the Cambrian era, the development of complex organ systems, and the development of irreducibly complex molecular machines.”[xxiii] It is precisely the most basic contentions of the evolutionary model that are the most weakly supported. Darwinian Theory has not been able to explain how amino acids became DNA, or find the link between reptile and bird or the early primates and man. And as more and more fossil evidence is assembled the problem of the ‘missing link’, the connecting transitional form – is increasingly evident. It is not just the link between ape and man that is missing, but the problem is evident across all times and species. Denton, an agnostic, writes this: “The infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin.”[xxiv] Scientists are increasingly questioning the fact that amino acids somehow altered themselves into DNA. The notion that this complex information appeared spontaneously out of nowhere and for no good reason is increasingly seen as an illogical idea, fit into a pre-existing theory. They are beginning to realize that the link between ape and human may be based more on conjecture fed by a theoretical prejudice than any solid scientific evidence.
Here’s a final summation. First, there exists no documentary evidence for macro-evolution. Both biology and the fossil record show this is true. Secondly, the predicted transitional forms are absent. While there is evidence of new species having appeared, there are no linking forms above the family level. Next we must consider the incredible complexity of the DNA. Its storage capacity is several trillion times that of our most advanced computers. This suggests design. Science tells us that complex design can only be produced by an intelligent designer. Fourthly, evolution faces the problem of explaining the generation of life from non-living matter. The biochemistry is impossible. No linking form has been found between complex molecules and the simplest one celled life form. In fact science cannot conceive of an event of inanimate matter that can form even the most basic form of life. Lastly, the tenets of naturalism violate the first two laws of thermodynamics. The first states that in a closed system, matter can be neither created nor destroyed. The corollary of the second law is that any change in form is accompanied by a decrease in complexity. The increasing complexity then, required by evolutionary theory contradicts the known laws of science. The appearance of ever more complex forms would require an intelligent agent. A Creator, perhaps![xxv] [xxvi] [xxvii]
[i] Robert Locke, The Scientific Case Against Evolution, Front Page Magazine, 2001
[ii] Norman L Geisler & Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith t6o Be an Atheist, Crossway, 2004, pg 140
[iii] Casey Luskin, What Are the Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution?, Evolution News, July 12, 2012
[iv] John Michael Fischer, Debunking Evolution: Problems between the theory and reality, New Geology, 2005-2015
[v] Molly K Burke, Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R Thornton, Michael R Rose, Anthony D Long,
Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, September 30, 2010 pgs 587-590
[vi] John Michael Fischer, Debunking Evolution: Problems between the theory and reality, New Geology, 2005-2015
[vii] Norman L Geisler & Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Crossway, 2004, pg 141
[viii] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Penguin, 1958, pg 171
[ix] Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, Free Press, 1996, pg 39
[x] Robert Locke, The Scientific Case Against Evolution, Front Page Magazine, 2001
[xi] Robert Locke, The Scientific Case Against Evolution, Front Page Magazine, 2001
[xii] Dr Ray Bohlin, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemistry of the Cell, Probe Ministries, May 27, 1997
https://www.probe.org/darwins-black-box/
[xiii] Michael Behe, Darwin’s Breakdown: Irreducible Complexity & Design at the Foundation of Life,
Touchstone Magazine, July/Aug 1999
[xiv] Dr Ray Bohlin, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemistry of the Cell, Probe Ministries, May 27, 1997
https://www.probe.org/darwins-black-box/
[xv] Norman L Geisler & Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Crossway, 2004, pg 145
[xvi] Norman L Geisler & Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Crossway, 2004, pg 148
[xvii] General Rebuttal to the Theory of Evolution, www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html, June 27, 2007
[xviii] Gerald Schroeder, The Science of God, The Free Press, New York, 1997, pgs 88-89
[xix] Robert F DeHaan & John L Wiester, The Cambrian Explosion- The Fossil Evidence and Intelligent Design, Touchstone,
July / August 1999
[xx] Gerald Schroeder, The Science of God, The Free Press, New York, 1997, pg 95
[xxi] Robert Locke, The Scientific Case Against Evolution, Front Page Magazine, 2001
[xxii] Robert Locke, The Scientific Case Against Evolution, Front Page Magazine, 2001
[xxiii] William A Dembski, What Every Theologian Should Know About Creation, Evolution and Design, Discovery, April 1, 1996
[xxiv] Denton was quoted from: Robert Locke, The Scientific Case Against Evolution, Front Page Magazine, 2001
[xxv] Dr Ray Bohlin, Mere Creation: Science Faith and Intelligent Design, Probe Ministries, May 27, 2000
[xxvi] Curt Sewell, Some Arguments Favoring Creation, Creation Bits Number 4, November 2, 1999
[xxvii] Robert Locke, The Scientific Case Against Evolution, Front Page Magazine, 2001
Leave a Reply