The Creation-Evolution Controversy

God created man in his own image ...
male and female created he them. --Genesis 1:27

The evolution theory has frequently been accepted as fact. But now the theory of evolution is experiencing powerful challenges. Scientific theorists, recent discoveries of species believed to be extinct, and massive fossil evidence unearthed during the last 100 years have shaken the basic tenets of Darwin’s theory. However, very few of the essential problems have been widely publicized, and the theory of evolution continues to be taught in many schools as fact.

As we review the problems evolution faces today, we will find repeatedly our Creator’s signature in the material creation of life on earth.

Progressive Upward Change

Significant positive change as proposed by the theory of evolution requires a gradual accumulation of characteristics to provide a net beneficial quality. But since all functioning organs in the human body are themselves complex interdependent systems, from a purely theoretical standpoint it is not easy to envision a path by which they could develop.

An eye, for example, is a complex organ with interdependent, complex parts. If sightedness developed from unsightedness, how would the transitional forms be useful enough for the organism to survive? The question can rightly be asked, what good is 5% of an eye? The marvelously complex and specialized structures such as wings, lungs, hearts and brains are extremely difficult to explain. They point to design, design to purpose, and purpose to intelligence.

This basic concern has never been resolved. Indeed, the deeper the investigation, the more apparent is the case for design, and the more pressing the problem. It is a fatal flaw for the concept of simply natural evolution, and it is simple enough for all to grasp. The case for faith in God is straightforward and reasonable. Nevertheless, let us examine the basic premises of the theory of evolution.

Three Foundation Premises

The theory of evolution as outlined in The Origin of Specie s is based on three basic propositions:

1) Species are NOT immutable. The method by which diversity of life is derived from a common ancestor is called "descent with modification."

2) Evolutionary processes can account for all or nearly all of the diversity of life because all living things descended from a very small group of ancestors — possibly a single microscopic cell.

3) This incredible process is guided by "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest." Vast amounts of time are required for this process to work.

The first of these is only marginally true. Separate species are sometimes defined as those groups which cannot interbreed, and speciation of this kind can be demonstrated. For example the herring gull and the lesser black backed gull are two distinct bird species in Europe, but as you trace one westward and the other eastward, you find a continuum of changes linked to an intermediate species in Eastern Siberia. All the varieties can interbreed except the two ends which converge in Europe (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, page 82). But there are no examples of one kind of species (like a bird) gradually phasing into another type of species (like a lizard).

The second is purely hypothetical (and is the whole point at issue). The third has received a lot of publicity. Let’s examine it further.

Natural Selection

Surprisingly, this proposition did not obtain any direct experimental support until nearly a century had passed. But in the 1950s an Oxford zoologist named Bernard Kettlewell provided some experimental evidence that natural selection does function in nature, through his now famous "peppered moth" experiment.

This moth comes in dark and light varieties. In the experiment, Kettlewell released approximately equal amounts of both into an unpolluted forest, later recapturing 34 dark and 62 light moths. Evidently the light moths survived better since their light tones blended better against the light-colored trees and lichen covered rocks, while the darker ones, more visible by contrast, were presumably detected and eaten by birds in greater numbers. The experiment was repeated in another forest, one darkened by industrial pollution, and showed the anticipated opposite results. One of his colleagues, Professor Niko Tinbergen, gathered more confirming information, filming birds capturing moths selectively against light and darkened tree trunks.

This was evidence in support of Darwin’s supposition that such natural selection actually does operate in nature. However, this force has no intrinsic creative power. It is merely a sieve, a selector, which at the most is able to produce a statistical preference for the survivability of certain traits over others. There inheres in it no specific ability to produce change, merely to select among the changes otherwise produced. Nor has it any intrinsic power to even select those features which will advance the complexity, sophistication or value of the creature involved. In fact, natural selection preserves but one quality — survivability — and is thus without power to produce an upward bias in the progressing variety of life.

Just about any characteristic can be either advantageous or disadvantageous, depending on the surrounding environmental conditions. Does it seem that the ability to fly is obviously an advantage? Darwin hypothesized that natural selection might have caused beetles on Madeira to lose the ability to fly because beetles capable of flight tended to be blown out to sea. The large human brain requires a large skull which causes discomfort and danger to the mother in childbirth. We assume that our brain size is advantageous because civilized humans dominate the planet, but it is far from obvious that the large brain was a net advantage in the circumstances in which it supposedly evolved. "Among primates in general, those with the largest brains are not the ones least in danger of extinction" (Darwin on Trial, page 21).

Natural selection is sometimes termed "survival of the fittest." But by definition, the "fittest" means only those most prone to survive as a species (like cockroaches). Thus George Gaylord Simpson (1964) said "Natural selection favors fitness only if you define fitness as leaving more descendants."

Natural Selection — a Tautology

A tautology is a way of saying the same thing twice. "The phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ is something of a tautology. So are most mathematical theorems. There is no harm in saying the same truth in two different ways" (J.B.S. Haldane, 1935, from Darwin on Trial, page 20). However, there is harm in supposing that a tautology explains something which it does not. If we wish to know how a fish can become a man, it is not instructive to be told that the organisms that leave the most offspring are the ones that leave the most offspring.

Some statements on behalf of evolution and the process of natural selection reduce to something essentially equivalent. The following deductive argument is found in the British Natural History Museum’s handbook on evolution, by Colin Patterson.

1) All organisms must reproduce to survive.

2) All organisms exhibit hereditary variations.

3) Hereditary variables differ in their effect on reproduction.

4) Therefore, variations with favorable effects on reproduction will succeed and those with unfavorable effects will fail and the organism will change.

This is nothing more than the tautology discussed above, with the added words "and the organism will change." Without this addition there is nothing here to support evolution. However, the assertion is added without support. Actually natural selection may be more responsible for stability than for change. As Philip Johnson observes, "The range of hereditary variations may be narrow, and the variations which survive may be just favorable enough to keep the species as it is. Possibly the species would change a great deal more (in the direction of eventual extinction) if the least favored individuals most often succeeded in reproducing their kind. That the effect of natural selection may be to keep a species from changing is not merely a theoretical possibility. [In fact] ... the prevailing characteristic of fossil species is stasis — the absence of change. There are numerous "living fossils" which are much the same today as they were millions of years ago, at least as far as we can determine." (Darwin on Trial, page 23.)

In fact there is no evidence that the selective capacity of "natural selection" accounts for anything like new organs, body types or anatomical abilities — all indispensably necessary to allow the hypothesized natural, upward progress of living things.

Mutation —A Proposed Cause of Change

When Darwin proposed his theory, the laws of genetics were not understood and he supposed natural variety from genetic breeding would supply the diversity from which natural selection would select. But as the science of biology progressed, it became clear that genetic variety could not produce fundamental changes of kind, and this proposition was dropped.

Mutations were next considered the responsible agent of change. The problem, of course, is that the effect of mutations on organisms is generally destructive and debilitating. The vast majority of mutations have a negative effect on the organism and decrease its survivability. But, as no other agent of change is at hand, in one form or another it is still the agent of choice.

Mutation provides the mechanism for permanent changes beyond the genetic limitations of a given organism. Darwin stated emphatically that massive, simultaneous mutation would amount to a miracle and as such would have no place in his theory. He was convinced that gradual changes over long periods of time were necessary for evolution to work. Interestingly, the latest theories regarding evolution specify just the opposite — that in relatively brief periods of time, explosions of diversity through massive mutations are the only hope left consistent with the facts. In large part, this is because of ...

The Fossil Record

In theory, according to Darwinian evolution, there should be a continuum of life all about us representing conceivable kind of intermediate between various kinds. Indeed, if observations could produce such a continuum, the evidence for transitional development would be greatly strengthened. But as it is, nature is clumped in discrete blocks, discrete kinds, more like separate bushes with diversity than one continuous tree of life.

Evolutionists reply that the present state is due to widespread extinctions of the various intervening steps which connected the various kinds long ago. If so, should not these past forms be well represented in the fossil record?

But the fossil record does not show the millions of tiny transitional life forms which Darwin’s theory postulated must have existed. Darwin himself admitted "the case at present must remain inexplicable and may be truly argued as a valid argument against the views here entertained." (The Origin of Species, page 332, cited from Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, page 188.) He supposed another 100 years of digging would supply the gaps. It hasn’t. Evolutionists have searched diligently for the dramatic "missing links" between all the variety of basic kinds. In spite of the incredible effort, talent and money expended in this search, only a few examples of possible transition species can be identified.

The link between fish and amphibians had to be given up when its most hopeful example, the coelacanth, thought to be extinct for millions of years, was caught by fishermen in the Indian Ocean in 1938. This fish, which has skeletal "leg buds," turned out to be 100% fishlike in its internal soft tissue structures and has no amphibian tendencies in its behavior. There are no candidates to be found for the link between amphibians and reptiles.

The reptile-mammal link has one example of a fossilized creature that is essentially a reptile, but with a very mammal-like jaw structure, but no other similarities can be found. The strongest "missing link" is the reptile-bird link. The famous Archeopteryx, a dinosaur flying reptile, may be considered a precursor to a bird, but no mechanism for the complex and extensive changes between Archeopteryx and modern birds have been found to be plausible.

But how many transition forms should we expect to find? "Of the 329 living families of terrestrial vertebrates 261 or 79.1% have been found as fossils and, when birds (which are poorly fossilized) are excluded, the percentage rises to 87.8%" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, page 189). Would not this imply that a similar proportion of extinct transitions should be found?

As Darwin admitted, "That the geological record is imperfect all will admit; but that it is imperfect to the degree required by our theory, few will be inclined to admit." (The Origin of Species , page 464, from Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, page 191.)

The fact that the fossil record did not contain the anticipated multitudes of transitional life forms Darwin’s theory implied was to them evidence that the fossil record was incomplete. It was a bad excuse then. Now, after 139 years of digging have produced literally tons of fossil data with no substantial evidence of transitional forms, it is a disaster. Indeed, groups of organisms appear suddenly in the fossil record and are distinct from other groups from their earliest appearance.

Embryonic Similarities

Another popular argument for evolution points to similarities between the embryonic forms of similar organisms. The assumption is that the developmental sequence from fertilized egg to viable organism "replays" the evolutionary development of that organism. But closer examination of this phenomenon by embryologists has disproved this idea. In fact, observed similarities in bone structure of mammals, for example, demonstrate that even though a human, a whale, and a bat all have five digit appendages, these appendages develop from different cell layers, pass through different developmental steps in differing lengths of time, and form a hand, a fin and a wing respectively, each uniquely suited to its owner and used for very different functions. The differences are inconsistent with a progressive development one from another.

But the similarities evidence the plan of a single Creator, much as three very different buildings can be identified as "Frank Lloyd Wright buildings" by certain "signature" similarities.

Molecular Evidence

When Darwin published his theory, molecular science was in its earliest stages of development. He knew nothing about genes and chromosomes, much less the complex protein chain matrixes people are generally familiar with today. If evolution actually occurred, changes would have to take place at the molecular level first, and there should be molecular evidence to support it.

Unfortunately for Darwin’s theory, the forces of natural selection which it depended upon to effect change, at the molecular level act primarily to prevent change. The molecular evidence strongly supports the fossil evidence that groups of organisms appeared suddenly and within a relatively short period of time. Therefore the molecular evidence fails to confirm either the existence of a common ancestor or the concept of slow, gradual change.

Several books have been published in the last few years which detail the fascinating story of current molecular research and its impact on evolutionary theory. One is Darwin’s Black Box, The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Michael J. Behe (1996). He focuses on the issue of "irreducible complexity" — systems which require the interactivity of many disparate but mutually necessary components. In detail he explains the complexities of such things as cellular motion (chapter 3), the incredible series of reactions involved in blood clotting (chapter 4), the imponderables of organizing the proper supplies and shipments of necessary materials within a living cell (chapter 5), the amazing ingenuity of the immune system (chapter 6), and the problems the cell faces in producing just one of the four primary components of DNA. (Even our superlatives do not adequately express the difficulties.) None of these cases, or the hundreds of other complex systems intrinsic to life, have been explained in the evolutionary hypothesis. Things were much simpler in Darwin’s day when protoplasm was just a milky blob.

In summary, the theory of evolution and its impact on modern society is in the throes of a deadly conflict.

The truth cannot be hidden much longer. Even honest skeptics in the scientific community are beginning to sit up and take notice that evolution has not been handled objectively. The evidence is piling up to reconsider the traditional explanations of evolution as a fact in the light of reason and impartiality. We may be sure that scientific evidence will reveal the divine intelligence behind creation before too long. When the God of the Bible is once again recognized as the author of natural laws and of life itself, it will open the door for recognition of his plan for the perfection of the human creation and the earth itself.

  BACK