Undergirding several of the topics that we are considering in this series is the Darwinian theory of evolutionary process. Today this process is generally declared to be a “scientific fact.” However, this contention can be likened to former Vice President Al Gore’s statement that man-made global warming is a scientific fact. These statements are not based upon the weight of evidence as the evidence has not proven these theories.* Instead, proponents of one side of the argument have gained enough adherents that they can bully the other side by essentially saying, “Look, because most of us believe this, and because we comprise such a large number of scientists, it must be fact.” This is not science; it is politics.
As of March 7, 2014, PetitionProject.org reported that 31,487 scientists have signed a petition which reads in part:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
Clearly there is not a scientific consensus regarding the theory of man-made global warming. Instead, there is merely a consensus among many scientists to the exclusion of those scientists who disagree with them. Likewise, there is no scientific consensus regarding the theory of evolutionary process. There is merely a consensus among many scientists to the exclusion of those scientists who disagree with them.
Even so, Darwinian Theory is taught within most public schools as scientific fact, and Creationism is often touted as mere religious theory. This has brought many Christian students to a point of crisis. They believe that science is true. After all, science is simply the systematized observation of reality. Likewise, they believe that the Bible is true. However, the student is taught that science and the Bible’s account of creation contradict one another. Consequently, the student feels compelled to either reject one of these standards for determining truth as being wrong, or he must discover a way to make the two fit together. The result has largely been one of compromise. Far too many Christian students have sided with “science” to the neglect of Scripture. Because they believe science to be the ultimate standard for determining truth, they have determined that either the Bible contains errors, or the first few chapters of the Bible should be understood as allegory. In either case, they have concluded that the Bible is not entirely accurate in its account. Recall that this is one of our litmus tests for identifying the spirit of antichrist. The spirit of antichrist undermines and denies the authority of Scripture (1 John 5:10–12). If this is a consequence of embracing the Darwinian theory of evolutionary process, then we can be certain that it is a theory that is ultimately motivated by the spirit of antichrist.
As previously stated, the Darwinian theory of evolutionary process reigns supreme within today’s world of academia. In a speech at the 1959 Chicago Darwinian Centennial, the prominent evolutionary biologist and first Director of UNESCO, Sir Julian Huxley, said, “We all accept the fact of evolution . . The evolution of life is no longer a theory. It is a fact. It is the basis of all our thinking.” Likewise, in both his book Cosmos, and his television program, Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, Episode 2 titled “One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue,” professor, astronomer, astrophysicist, cosmologist, pioneer of exobiology, and prominent evolutionist, Dr. Carl Sagan, declared, “Evolution is a fact, not a theory. It really happened.”
There is disagreement regarding evolutionary mechanisms, but modern scientists do not tolerate disagreement regarding the reality of the evolutionary process itself. No longer is the nature of our origins open to objective debate. This seems to be primarily due to the fact that Darwinian evolution has become a political tool. Funding, recognition, vocational opportunities, etc. now depend upon one’s adherence to Darwinian Theory rather than one’s adherence to the scientific method. Politically, the Darwinian theory of evolutionary process is considered to be scientific fact, and in today’s society, political opinion is more important than genuine science in determining what is true and acceptable. Politics has determined that evolutionary process is considered scientific fact, whereas Creationism is considered religious dogma.
In his speech at the Chicago Darwinian Centennial, Sir Julian Huxley said, “Evolution had no room for the supernatural. The earth and its inhabitants were not created, they evolved.” Any theory that does not have room for God is an aberration of the truth. Genesis chapters 1 and 2 teach that God created the heavens, the earth, and all of their inhabitants. An origins perspective which has no room for the supernatural and the authority of Scripture is a view which is governed by the spirit of antichrist. Recall that a denial of God and a rejection of Scripture are two ways that we can quickly identify the spirit of antichrist.
As Christians, we determine our beliefs based upon what the Bible teaches. The Bible—not political expediency, and not even science—is our ultimate standard for determining truth. Politics and science are continually redefining themselves. Romans 3:4 says, “Let God be true though every one were a liar …”
Ultimately, every person places his faith in someone. None of us witnessed the genesis of life, and most of us are not professionally studying the subject of origins. As such, we depend upon the observations and conclusions of others, and we place our trust in those conclusions. We can trust the conclusions of scientists who are limited in their powers of observation, or we can trust God who knows all things, was an eye witness to creation, and who recorded His testimony in a book which has been repeatedly proven to be more reliable than any other historical book known to man.* Either way, our belief regarding the origin of life is based upon faith in what someone tells us.
Science is continually revising its conclusions as we gain more knowledge and greater powers of observation. For this reason, science should not serve as our ultimate standard for determining truth. Science is merely the process of observing, verifying, and repeating the laws and principles that God has created. However, a limited perspective necessarily results in a limited conclusion. This is why science once taught that the sun and planets orbit Earth, that the stars are fixed to a solid dome above the surface of the Earth, and that Neil Armstrong would sink into a sea of dust when he stepping upon the surface of the moon. These conclusions were based upon respectable science at the time, but they were quickly dispelled when mankind’s knowledge and perspective of the universe was expanded through the development of the telescope, the rocket, and the satellite. It is only because of these limitations that science sometimes appears to be at odds with God. In his book The Creation Evolution Controversy, professor and former evolutionist Dr. R.L. Wysong writes:
Modern science was primarily developed within Christendom at a time when creationism was taken seriously and literally. Most of the fathers of the various scientific disciplines were creationists. Some examples are Cuvier, d’Archiac, d’Orbigny, Barrande, Pictet, Murchison, Agassiz, Forbes and Sedgwick – fathers of comparative anatomy and paleontology (fossil study); John Ray – founder of systematic botany; Davy – chemist and discoverer of Potassium and sodium; Boyle – one of the founders of modern chemistry; Joule – physicist and discoverer of the First Law of Thermodynamics; Kelvin – physicist and discoverer of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and telegraphic instruments; Galileo – father of mechanics and experimental physics; Kepler – father of modern dynamical astronomy; Faraday – physicist and discoverer of electrolysis, the power generator and electromagnetic fields; Maxwell – physicist and developer of the unifying concept of the electromagnetic theory of light; Samuel Morse – inventor of the telegraph; Newton – physicist, mathematician and originator of the binomial theorem, differential calculus and the reflecting telescope as well as discoverer of the nature of white light, colors and the gravitational forces on the moon; Pasteur – chemist, microbiologist and discoverer of the microbial nature of disease, vaccines, stereochemistry and pasteurization; and, of course, the recent scientists Einstein and Von Braun have espoused belief in a creator. So the majority of modern scientific advancement is based upon discoveries and scientific methods originated by creationists!
Unlike many scientific theories, the Bible has yet to be proven false. For centuries, countless individuals have attempted to do so, presenting many convincing arguments, but in the end, none of these arguments have succeeded. We do not have space to delve into this, but there is more evidence to prove the authenticity of Scripture than there is of any other historical book known to mankind.* As such, our faith in the reliability of Scripture is reasonable. It is not a blind faith.
Having said all this, we will focus this chapter on some of evolution’s foundational elements. When discussing this subject, it is easy to get caught up in peripheral arguments; however, these arguments accomplish very little. We can spend hours debating specific studies and the feasibility of various evolutionary mechanisms, but these arguments rarely accomplish a fundamental change in thinking. Instead, we expend a great sum of energy and time only to see very little change. Surely there must be a more effective approach.
Another difficulty that we face when addressing this issue is bias. Both parties tend to be so ardent regarding their beliefs that it is difficult for either party to be objective. Often there is a greater desire to win the debate than there is to defend the truth. Consequently, it can be a difficult task sorting through arguments and position papers in search of objective and reliable arguments. Do not be fooled. Christians are just as biased as any evolutionist. In their zeal to defend the integrity of the Bible, far too many Christians have sacrificed the integrity of science and of truth. Some are selective and inconsistent in their scientific approach. Others misrepresent or oversimplify opposing arguments. Still others have rip quotes out of context and, in some cases, fabricate quotes to bolster their arguments. Consequently, it can be very difficult to discern which Christian arguments are truly sound.
Most of us are not technically minded. We do not understand enough about these sciences to recognize which arguments are based upon good science and which are not. Therefore, Christians do themselves a disservice when they seek to bolster their position by introducing weak and erroneous arguments. Other Christians who have equipped themselves with these arguments quickly find themselves in trouble when they use them against someone who is well educated in this field of study. These arguments are soon shot full of holes, and the Christian is left with virtually no recourse because he does not understand the subject well enough to intelligently respond to the arguments being presented him.
Recognizing these common pitfalls, we will pursue an alternative approach for discussing the subject of Darwinian evolution with someone who accepts it as fact. To begin with, we as Christians must acknowledge that some kinds of evolution are, indeed, scientific fact. The word “evolution” simply means “change with time.” This is undeniable. This is a fact. Of course, not all of these changes are positive. Many of these changes are degenerative in nature. In a debate with a professor from Southern Oregon State College, the creationist founder and president of Reason for Faith Ministries, Dr. Thomas Kindell, declared:
Of course change occurs with time! We observe changes taking place everywhere. Stars explode in nova and supernova. Mountains erode into the sea. Mutations cause disease and deformity. Plant and animal species become extinct and people grow old and die. We see all kinds of degenerative changes (evolution) as time passes but this kind of evolution is not the kind we are debating about. We are debating about the particular kind of evolution (the general Darwinian theory of evolution) which proposes that over vast eons of time life arose from non-living matter and amoebas evolved into men. Since no one has ever experimentally observed this kind of evolution, it is certainly not a fact and it remains very much open to question.
When we speak about evolutionary theory as an explanation of our origins, we are discussing something far more specific and complex than mere change over time. We are referring to the Darwinian theory of evolutionary process. Regarding this theory, Charles Darwin was correct in his observation that animals can experience limited biological changes which help them adapt to new environments. These changes are known as “micro-evolution.” An example of micro-evolution can be seen in the number of different breeds of dogs which exist today. These dogs share a common ancestor, yet micro-evolution, through selective breeding, has resulted in a variety of genetic traits.
Selective breeding may be able to produce a variety of genetic traits, but this is only accomplished through shuffling existing genetic information. In none of these dogs is new genetic information introduced. There is merely a change in which genes are made dominant and which genes are made recessive. Genetically, every one of these dogs derives their traits from the same genetic pool of information.
No breeder has ever bred a dog into some other family of animal. It is important to note that micro-evolution always occurs within a common family. Science classifies organisms according to kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. Micro-evolution is the limited variation that takes place within plant and animal types (families). There are no known instances of these genetic changes causing a member of one family to be changed in such a way as to be classified as belonging to a different family.
Micro-evolution is a scientific fact, but there is another kind of genetic evolution which is, at best, a theory. This is macro-evolution. Macro-evolution occurs when a change within the gene pool of an organism results in its being transformed into a new family. Macro-evolution is purely academic as this process has never been observed, and there is no undisputed fossil evidence of this process occurring within nature. In 1980, a conference titled “Macroevolution” was held at the University of Chicago with 150 of the world’s leading evolutionary theorists. The evolutionist Roger Lewin reports in a 1980 Science article titled “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire”:
The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No.
Micro-evolution is an established scientific fact, but macro-evolution remains theoretical. Nevertheless, most modern scientists begin with the assumption that macro evolution is a fact. Having assumed the validity of this premise, they then seek to construct a valid theory for how evolution occurs. In an About.com Guide article titled “Evolution: Fact or Theory? How can it be both? What’s the Difference?” professor, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and science historian, Dr. Stephen Gould, is quoted as saying:
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. … Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory — natural selection — to explain the mechanism of evolution.
Dr. Stephen Gould presents Darwin’s scientific observation of micro-evolution as proof that all forms of evolution—both micro and macro-evolution—are scientific fact. It is evident that Dr. Stephen Gould is referring to macro evolution as a fact because he also says:
Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
In other words, macro-evolution is a fact, even if we have not yet discovered the mechanism by which this occurs. Dr. Stephen Gould, like so many other scientists, has predetermined his conclusion before approaching the data.
Most of the controversy surrounding the evolutionary process is the result of confusing the fact of micro-evolution with the theory of macro-evolution. Charles Darwin observed a very real natural event. The beaks of finches can grow longer or shorter as an adaptation to the environment. However, finches do not transform into a new family of organism as an adaptation to the environment. Where Charles Darwin erred was in assuming that micro-evolution proves the existence of macro-evolution, and today, advocates of the evolutionary process continue to cite examples of micro-evolution as proof of macro-evolution.
Is, then, the evolutionary process based on science or religious faith? Dictionary.com defines religion as: “A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.” Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as, “[T]he assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Thus, religious faith is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe which cannot be absolutely proven true. On the other hand, the Oxford English Dictionary defines science as:
A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain.
To simplify this definition, in school most of us were taught that science is that which is observable, verifiable, and repeatable.
Is the Darwinian evolutionary process observable? Given that the evolutionary process takes millions of years to occur, nobody lives long enough to observe this process. In his book Genetics and the Origin of Species, geneticist and evolutionary biologist, Dr. Theodosius Dobzhansky, writes:
Experience seems to show, however, that there is no way toward an understanding of the mechanisms of macroevolutionary changes, which require time on a geological scale, other than through a full comprehension of the microevolutionary processes observable within the span of a human lifetime. For this reason we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of micro- and macro evolution, and, proceeding on this assumption, to push our investigations as far ahead as this working hypothesis will permit.
In a 1957 American Scientist article titled, “On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology: Part 1, Biology,” Dr. Theodosius Dobzhansky also writes:
These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter. And yet it is just such impossibility that is demanded by anti-evolutionists when they ask for “proofs” of evolution which they would magnanimously accept as satisfactory.
Likewise, in a 1974 Evolution article titled “Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,” geologist, paleontologist, and professor, Dr. David Kitts, writes, “Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer.”
If the Darwinian theory of evolutionary process is not observable, then it does not belong to the realm of science. Sir Karl Popper—a leading authority on the philosophy of science and an evolutionist—writes in his autobiography, “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program—a possible framework for testable scientific theories.” Karl Popper later rescinded this statement, but it would appear as if the weight of evidence favors his original position.* Likewise, in a 1969 Nature article titled “Evolutionary History and Population Biology,” evolutionary biologists at Stanford University and the University of Sydney, Dr. Paul Erhlich and Dr. Louis Charles Birch, write:
Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus “outside of empirical science” but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.
If something cannot be observed, then it is no longer science. Instead it is faith, philosophy, or religion. In a 1974 American Scientist article titled, “Biological Evolution: Natural Selection or Random Walk?” evolutionary biologist, philosopher, professor, and President and Chairman of the Board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Francisco Ayala, writes:
Science seeks to discover patterns of relations among empirical facts and to advance hypotheses or theories that explain why the facts are as observed. A hypothesis is empirical or scientific only if it can be tested by experience. The “criterion of demarcation” which separates the empirical sciences from other realms of discourse, such as metaphysics and theology, is that scientific hypotheses are subject to empirical testing (Popper 1959). The tests are intended to discover whether predictions about the world of experience derived as logical consequences from a hypothesis agree or not with the state of affairs actually observed. A hypothesis or theory which cannot be, at least in principle, falsified by empirical observations and experiments does not belong in the realm of science.
Likewise, in a 1964 Science article titled “The Nonprevalence of Humanoids,” one of the most prominent evolutionists of the 20th century, George Gaylord Simpson, writes, “It is inherent in any acceptable definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything—or at the very least they are not science.”
Science consists of that which can be observed, verified, and repeated. Is the Darwinian theory of evolutionary process verifiable? Given that the evolutionary process is not observable, it follows that it is not verifiable. In his book Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Dr. Wolfgang Smith (not an evolutionist) writes:
And the salient fact is this: If by evolution we mean macro-evolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of any scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by Evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macro-evolutionary transformations have ever occurred.
Also, in a 1977 Natural History article titled, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, science historian, and professor, Dr. Stephen Gould, writes:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:
The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.
Darwin’s argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never “seen” in the rocks. … We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.
Dr. Stephen Gould later clarified that he did not intend the above quote to mean that there are absolutely no transitional forms, but rather that such transitional forms “are generally lacking at the species level,” and that there is no gradual evolutionary tree depicted by the fossil record.* He was attempting to defend a theory of evolution known as “punctuated equilibria.” Nevertheless, he does affirm that the geological record does not bear witness to the Darwinian theory of gradual evolutionary process. Prior to his death is 2002, Dr. Stephen Gould was possibly the world’s leading spokesman for the theory of evolution.
In a 2003 New Scientist article titled “Born Lucky,” physicist, professor, Director of BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science, Chair of the SETI: Post Detection Science and Technology Taskgroup of the International Academy of Astronautics, and evolutionist, Dr. Paul Davies, writes, “It’s a shame that there are precious few hard facts when it comes to the origin of life … the how part has everybody stumped. Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Also, in his book The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms, and the Order of Life, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology and Colorado State University and evolutionist, Franklin Harold, writes:
Life arose here on earth from inanimate matter, by some kind of evolutionary process, about four billion years ago. This is not a statement of demonstrable fact, but an assumption almost universally shared by specialists as well as scientists in general. It is not supported by any direct evidence, nor is it likely to be, but it is consistent with what evidence we do have.
The geologic column upon which the entire theory is based cannot possibly exist. If it existed the way evolutionists claim, then it would be nearly 100 miles thick. However, the crust of the earth is only 3 – 30 miles thick. In his book Historical Geology, paleontologist, professor, and Director of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale University, Dr. Carl Dunbar, writes:
[N]o single area contains a record of all geological time, and if it did, the section would be so thick that its base would be buried beyond our reach; but deposition has always been going on in one place or another, and we need only discover and correlate enough of the scattered fragments to build up a composite record of all geologic time. For more than a hundred years, the geologists of all countries have been co-operating in this endeavor and the total thickness of the stratified rocks now recognized would exceed 500,000 feet (= 95 miles) if all the beds were directly superposed.
Where we do find a geologic column of any sort, the top of the evolutionary geologic chart is missing, the fossils are in the wrong sequence, and some layers are even in reverse order of how they are supposed to have evolved. In a 1981 Creation Research Society Quarterly article titled “The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment,” geologist, author, and creationist, John Woodmorappe, writes:
2/3 of Earth’s land surface has only 5 or fewer of the 10 geologic periods in place … 80–85% of Earth’s land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods appearing in “correct” constructive order … A significant percentage of every geologic period’s rocks does not overlie rocks of the next geologic period … Some percentage of every geologic period rests directly upon Precambrian “basement” [this is supposed to be the oldest blocks of life] … Since only a small percentage of the earth’s surface obeys even a significant portion of the geologic column, it becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods. The claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time of ten biochronologic “onion skins” over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.
Thus far the Darwinian theory of evolutionary process is neither observable nor verifiable. Is it then repeatable? Clearly, if the evolutionary process is not observable or verifiable, it is also not repeatable. We cannot even discern how it happened the first time let alone repeat the process. Nevertheless, numerous attempts have been made to recreate this process, but all of these attempts have been unsuccessful.
The Darwinian theory of evolutionary process is not founded on science. It fails to meet the scientific requirements of observation, verification, and repetition; nevertheless, it is believed to be true. It would seem then that Darwinian evolution is a system founded upon faith.
Not only is the Darwinian theory of evolutionary process not a scientific fact, it is not even qualified to be considered a scientific theory. It is a hypothesis which fails even to become a scientific theory as it cannot support even one of its premises with any tangible, observable, verifiable, and repeatable evidence. A theory is a hypothesis which has been proven reasonable but has not yet been proven conclusive. Merriam-Webster.com defines “theory” as “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.” Darwinian evolution has not yet had any of its major propositions proven to be reasonable. Recall what evolutionary biologist, philosopher, professor, and President and Chairman of the Board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Francisco Ayala, writes in a 1974 American Scientist article titled, “Biological Evolution: Natural Selection or Random Walk?”:
The “criterion of demarcation” which separates the empirical sciences from other realms of discourse, such as metaphysics and theology, is that scientific hypotheses are subject to empirical testing (Popper 1959). The tests are intended to discover whether predictions about the world of experience derived as logical consequences from a hypothesis agree or not with the state of affairs actually observed. A hypothesis is empirical or scientific only if it can be tested by experience. … A hypothesis or theory which cannot be, at least in principle, falsified by empirical observations and experiments does not belong to the realm of science.
Thus, according to a prestigious evolutionist’s own definition, the evolutionary process does not belong to the realm of science because it cannot be falsified by empirical observations and experiments.
In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, biochemist, Senior Research Fellow in the Biochemistry Department at the University of Ontago, Dunedin, New Zealand, and Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, Dr. Michael Denton, writes:
The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research – paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology – has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe.
Likewise, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin’s book On the Origen of Species, the British zoologist and Scientific Director of the Zoological Society of London, Leonard Harrison Matthews, writes:
In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct, or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus proved? … The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory—is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in creation – both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.
Also, in his book Features of Evolution in the Flowering Plants, professor, Head of the Botany Department at Hull University, and evolutionist, Ronald Good, writes:
The fundamental inherent difficulty in the study of evolution is that this great natural process involves time dimensions of a magnitude quite out of proportion to the duration of human life or even to the sum of human experience, and the observer has therefore to rely on indirect, or circumstantial evidence. Hence beliefs that are often referred to as theories of evolution are, more accurately, only working hypotheses. This is a very important matter because the essence of a hypothesis is that it is an opinion suggested by the available evidence, but not one which precludes the possibility of some alternative. A hypothesis may well be substantiated when more corroborative details are forthcoming, but until then there is not logical reason for excluding the consideration of some other explanation of the facts of nature, it is not justifiable to maintain that no other explanation is possible or permissible.
In his book Until the Sun Dies, professor, astronomer, physicist, cosmologist, first Chairman of NASA’s Lunar Exploration Committee, Chief of NASA’s Theoretical Division, and founding Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Dr. Robert Jastrow, writes:
At present science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding; or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in non-living matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief.
Likewise, a 1962 Christian Science Monitor article titled “Biological Origens: Theories Evolve” quotes professor, astronomer, astrophysicist, cosmologist, pioneer of exobiology, and co-writer and narrator of the TV series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, Dr. Carl Sagan, as saying:
Today it is far easier to believe that organisms arose spontaneously on the earth than to try to account for them in any other way. Nevertheless, this is still a statement of faith rather than of demonstrable scientific fact. Scientists have only sketchy notions of how this evolution might have occurred.
Some proponents of evolution treat the addition of vast amounts of time as an antidote to the unscientific and unreasonable nature of the evolutionary process. Evolutionists Camp and Arms, in their textbook Exploring Biology write:
The events involved in the origin of life were extremely unlikely, according to the laws of probability. Given enough time, however, even very improbable events are bound to occur. … So, unlikely as living systems are, they had so much time to evolve that their origin was probably inevitable!
In the book The Physics and Chemistry of Life, evolutionist, George Wald, writes:
The most complex machine man has ever devised – say an electronic brain – is child’s play compared with the simplest of living organisms. … One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are – as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. … The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough. Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait. Time itself performs the miracles.
Also, in his book The Evolution of Living Organisms, eminent French zoologist, professor, author of over 300 publications, and evolutionist, Pierre Grasse, writes, “Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but is secretly worshipped.”
Nevertheless, time cannot be a substitute for true science. The very addition of this time is based upon conjecture, not factual evidence. Evolutionists who have bothered to make a serious and thorough probability analysis of evolution theory have concluded that time cannot be the Hail Mary answer they are looking for. Contrary to popular consensus, evolution is not inevitable if given enough time. The probability of getting a small protein that is 150 amino acids long is 1 in 10164. This is a 10 with 164 zeros after it. To put this into perspective, it is believed that the total number of atoms in the universe is only 1080. Next, we must calculate how many opportunities there were for this event to occur. The total number of particles which exist and can interact with one another is 1080. The total amount of time given for these events to occur is 1016. The total number of events that could have occurred each second is 1043. Thus 1080, times 1016, times 1043, equals 10139. The total number of opportunities for a single small protein 150 amino acids long to occur is 10139, but the probability of this one event occurring is 1 in 10164. There simply are not enough opportunities to make invetivable the evolution of even one small protein that is 150 amino acids long. Moreover, this is only the first step in a long series of random evolutions needed to create the most primitive form of life. The odds that just this first step in the evolutionary process will inevitably occur are inconceivably smaller than the total opportunities for this evolution to occur when given billions of years. Clearly time is not the solution to the problem of evolution.
Some respected evolutionists have been honest enough to admit this fact. In his book Quantum Evolution, professor and evolutionist, Dr. Johnjoe McFadden, writes, “The simplest living cell could not have arisen by chance.” In his book Life: Its Nature, Origin and Development, biochemist, founder of the Biochemistry Institute, Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, and President of the International Society for the Study of the Origins of Life, Alexander Oparin—an evolutionist so prominent that he has been called “the father of origen-of-life research”—writes:
It is sometimes argued in speculative papers on the origin of life that highly improbable events (such as the spontaneous formation of a molecule of DNA and a molecule of DNA-polymerase in the same region of space and at the same time) become virtually inevitable over the vast stretches of geological time. No serious quantitative arguments, however, are given in support of such conclusions.
In his book Time’s Arrow and Evolution, medical researcher and evolutionist, Dr. Harold Blum, writes:
The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability. This calculation alone presents serious objection to the idea that all living matter and systems are descended from a single protein molecule which was formed as a “chance” act.
In the abstract of a 1985 Acta Biotheoretica journal article titled, “On the Probability of the Emergence of a Protein with a Particular Function,” evolutionist, Dr. Paul Erbrich, writes:
The probability, however, of the convergent evolution of two proteins with approximately the same structure and function is too low to be plausible, even when all possible circumstances are present which seem to heighten the likelihood of such convergence. If this is so, then the plausibility of a random evolution of two or more different but functionally related proteins seems hardly greater.
Evolutionist and biochemist, David White, writes:
Even a vastly simplified version of the modern genetic apparatus, requiring perhaps 20 proteins working together, would have a very low probability of even one copy of each protein being in the ocean at the same time. If you started with a billion planets like the primitive Earth and let each of them react for a billion years, chances are that not one of them would come up with the right combination even once.
And in a 1963 Nature article titled, “Urge and Molecular Biology,” professor, Director of the Earth System Science Computational Center, founding CEO and Science Committee Chair of the Australian Computational Earth Systems Simulator Major National Research Facility, and evolutionist, Dr. Peter Mora, writes:
To invoke statistical and probability concepts to explain the origin and continuance of life does not appeal to me when I consider that the expression and the consequence of life from which we detect the presence of a living unit is exactly opposite to what we would expect on the basis of pure statistical and probability considerations. (I refer to the creation of order on a very complex level.) I do not have a scientifically more satisfying theory to suggest in its place, and I beg only ignorance.
He also writes, “I believe we developed the practice of infinite escape clauses to avoid facing the conclusion that the probability of a self-reproducing state is zero. This is what we must conclude from classical quantum mechanical principles, as Wigner demonstrated …”
Belief in the evolutionary process is not governed by reason and rationality. Belief in a literal understanding of the Genesis account of creation is at least as probable as a belief in the evolutionary process. Dr. Charles Thaxton earned a doctorate in physical chemistry from Iowa State University and completed post-doctorate programs in the history of science at Harvard University and the molecular biology laboratories of Brandeis University. Dr. Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen wrote a book titled The Mystery of Life’s Origin in which they say:
We know that in numerous cases certain effects always have intelligent causes, such as dictionaries, sculptures, machines and paintings. We reason by analogy that similar effects also have intelligent causes. For example, after looking up to see “BUY FORD” spelled out in smoke across the sky we infer the presence of a skywriter even if we heard or saw no airplane. We would similarly conclude the presence of intelligent activity were we to come upon an elephant-shaped topiary in a cedar forest.
In like manner an intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn’t the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence. The so-called Shannon information laws apply equally to the genetic code and to the Morse code. True, our knowledge of intelligence has been restricted to biology-based advanced organisms, but it is currently argued by some that intelligence exists in complex non-biological computer circuitry. If our minds are capable of imagining intelligence freed from biology in this sense, then why not in the sense of an intelligent being before biological life existed?
Several evolutionists have admitted that their belief in the evolutionary process is rooted in their rejection of God and the authority of His Word. In a 1929 Nature article titled, “Adaptation,” Dr. David Watson writes:
Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or is supported by logically coherent arguments, but because it does fit all the facts of Taxonomy, of Palaeontology, and of Geographical Distribution, and because no alternative explanation is credible. … The extraordinary lack of evidence to show that the incidence of death under natural conditions is controlled by small differences of the kind which separate species from one another or, what is the same thing from an observable point of view, by physiological differences correlated with such structural features, renders it difficult to appeal to natural selection as the main or indeed an important factor in bringing about the evolutionary changes which we know to have occurred. It may be important, it may indeed be the principle which overrides all others; but at present its real existence as a phenomenon rests on an extremely slender basis.
The extreme difficulty of obtaining the necessary data for any quantitative estimation of the efficiency of natural selection makes it seem probable that this theory will be re-established, if it be so, by the collapse of alternative explanations which are more easily attacked by observation and experiment. If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.
Similarly, in his book The Origin and Evolution of Life, geologist, paleontologist, president of the American Museum of Natural History, and evolutionist, Dr. Henry Osborn, writes, “In truth, from the earliest stages of Greek thought man has been eager to discover some natural cause of evolution, and to abandon the idea of supernatural intervention in the order of nature.” Also, in a 1999 letter to the editor of Nature titled, “A View from Kansas on that Evolution Debate,” professor and evolutionist, Dr. Scott Todd, writes, “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic”
Recall that the rejection of God is a defining aspect of the spirit of antichrist (2 John 1:7; 1 John 2:22). The motivating force behind the evolutionary process is the spirit of antichrist disguised as the scientific pursuit of the truth. Romans 1:21–25 informs us that when men refuse to glorify God, He gives them over to a reprobate mind which elevates the significance of creation. Professing to be wise, these men are truly unwise. Men are so determined to do what they want to do that they will make even the most ridiculous, unfounded argument appear wise if it frees them from God.
Ultimately, the evolutionary process is rooted in a spiritual mindset. This is a theory which is promoted by the spirit of antichrist which is working within a political system that has embraced this spirit. Most people do not accept the theory of evolutionary process because of the facts, but because a political system which has embraced the spirit of antichrist is feeding this to people whose minds are already pre-disposed to reject God.
1 Timothy 6:20 tells us to guard ourselves against false knowledge. The King James Bible translates this as “science falsely so called.”* These men try to impose their belief upon us by claiming this to be science and reasonable knowledge. However, we have just observed that the evolutionary process fails to meet the standards of true science. This is really a false science.
The evolutionist, Dr. Louis Trenchard More, is quoted in the book The Creation-Evolution Controversy as saying:
The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion. . . The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational.
Also, in a correspondence sent to A. W. Mehlert in 1993, physicist, professor, Director of BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science, Chair of the SETI: Post Detection Science and Technology Taskgroup of the International Academy of Astronautics, and evolutionist, Dr. Paul Davies, writes:
No theory can rule out divine creation. Scientific theories are simply proposals for how the world is, to be tested by observation. There is no logical impediment to God creating the universe five minutes ago in its present state, complete with human memories. In the end a theory stands or falls on whether human beings consider it reasonable.
Ultimately, what a person believes regarding the origin of life is based upon faith. There is no fundamental difference between the faith necessary to accept the Darwinian theory of evolutionary process and Creationism. People are not convinced based upon the evidence. This argument will not be won by presenting more facts. Rather, people are convinced based upon whom they choose to trust. What we believe regarding this issue is rooted in the spiritual. The Darwinian theory of evolutionary process may present itself as a naturalistic approach to understanding our genesis, but it is truly just another prong in the spirit of antichrist’s efforts to undermine our faith in God and in His Word. It is spiritual in origin. Ultimately, this issue boils down to the question, “Do we trust the Bible?”
- malakh1960climate, “Al Gore exposed on global warming to congress.” ↵
- For the purposes of this book, “global warming” refers to the politicized theory that man is responsible for the warming of the earth, and if left unchecked, this will result in cataclysmic disasters. In this book, global warming does not refer to theories that the sun or other natural causes may be causing an increase in the global temperature. For more information, visit the Science and Public Policy Institute at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org. ↵
- Petition Project, “Global Warming Petition Project.” ↵
- The New York Times, November 28, 1959, Source: Evolution Facts, “Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 3.” ↵
- Carl Sagan, Cosmos, 27, Source: Wikiquote, “Carl Sagan.” ↵
- The New York Times, November 28, 1959, Source: Evolution Facts, “Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 3.” ↵
- For more information, see Josh McDowell’s book, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. ↵
- Wysong, The Creation – Evolution Controversy, 417–418. ↵
- For more information, see Josh McDowell’s book, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. ↵
- Kindell, Evolution on Trial with Evolutionists at the Witness Stand, 12. ↵
- Biology Corner, “Taxonomy – the science of classifying organisms.” ↵
- Lewin, “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire.” 883. ↵
- Cline, “Evolution: Fact or Theory? How can it be both? What’s the Difference?” ↵
- Ibid. ↵
- “Religion.” ↵
- “The Power of Words,” Language Origins Society, 1990, Source: Language and Evolution, “The Power of Words.” ↵
- Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species, 12 ↵
- Dobzhansky, “On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology: Part 1, Biology,” 388. ↵
- David Kits, “Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,” Evolution 28 (September 1974): 466, Source: Morris, Henry, “The Vanishing Case for Evolution,” 15. ↵
- Karl Popper, Unended Quest, Source: Halstead, “Popper: Good Philosophy, Bad Science?,” 1210. ↵
- “I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation.” (Karl Popper, Dialectica, 32: 344–346, Source: Cline, “Karl Popper and Evolution: Is Evolutionary Theory Based on a Tautology?”) ↵
- Erlich, “Evolutionary History and Population Biology.” ↵
- Ayala, “Biological Evolution: Natural Selection or Random Walk?,” 700. ↵
- Simpson, “The Nonprevalence of Humanoids,” 770. ↵
- Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of Pierre Teilhard De Chardin (Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, 1988), 5–6, Source: Steven Dill, Objections to the Doctrine of Evolution, Source: Dill, “Shhh – Evolutionist’s Little Secret.” ↵
- Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” 14. ↵
- “I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record—geologically ‘sudden’ origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)—reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond. It represents much less than 1 per cent of the average life-span for a fossil invertebrate species—more than ten million years. Large, widespread, and well established species, on the other hand, are not expected to change very much. We believe that the inertia of large populations explains the stasis of most fossil species over millions of years. We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the different success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane. Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.” (Stephen Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory,” Discover 2 (May, 1981): 34–37, Source: Unofficial Stephen Jay Gould Archive, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace.”) ↵
- Davies, “Born Lucky.” ↵
- Harold, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms, and the Order of Life, 236. ↵
- Carl Dunbar, Historical Geology, Source: Ward, In the Beginning, 56. ↵
- Woodmorappe, “The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment.” ↵
- “Theory.” ↵
- Ayala, “Biological Evolution: Natural Selection or Random Walk?,” 700. ↵
- Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 77. ↵
- Leonard Harrison Matthews, On the Origen of Species, 1971 edition, Source: Moreland, The Creation Hypothesis, 275. ↵
- Ronald Good, Features of Evolution in the Flowering Plants, Source: Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, 5. ↵
- Robert Jastrow, Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1977), 62, Source: Gaither’s Dictionary, 706–707. ↵
- Camp, Exploring Biology, 234. ↵
- “The Origin of Life – Evolution’s dilemma,” 46. ↵
- Grasse, Evolution of living organisms, 107. ↵
- The author’s original source for this information has been lost. Nevertheless, a similar argument can be found in a YouTube clip of an Answers in Genesis presentation by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (alyosha24601, “Staggering Mathematical Probability of Just One Protein by Chance.”) ↵
- McFadden, Quantum Evolution, 84. ↵
- Alexander Oparin, Life: Its Nature, Origin, and Development (1961), 31, Source: Evolution Facts, Evolution Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, “Appendix 10a.” ↵
- Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow, Source: “The Origin of Life – Evolution’s dilemma.” ↵
- Erbrich, “On the probability of the emergence of a protein with a particular function.” ↵
- David White, The Santa Clara, February 6, 1978, 13, Source: Kindell, Evolution on Trial, 86. ↵
- Mora, “Urge and Molecular Biology,” 215. ↵
- Sidney Fox, The Origins of Pre-Biological Systems, 45, Source: “These Quotes Reveal the Credulity Of Evolutionists.” ↵
- Thaxton, The Mystery of life’s origin, 211–212. ↵
- Watson, “Adaptation,” 231, 233. ↵
- Osborn, The Origin and Evolution of Life, ix. ↵
- Todd, “A View from Kansas,” 423. ↵
- 1 Timothy 6:20 (ESV) says, “O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called ‘knowledge,’” 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) says, “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:” Both translations are accurate as the Greek word gnosis is defined as “knowledge,” “science.” (Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #G1108, 24.) ↵
- Why I Believe in Creation (Great Britain: Evolution Protest Movement Pamphlet, 1968), Source: Wysong, The Creation – Evolution Controversy, 31. ↵
- Paul Davies, “Correspondence Sent to A.W. Mehlert,” March 22, 1993, Source: Northwest Creation Network, “Thermodynamics.” ↵