Evolution is given high profile in the media and deserves a reasoned, scientific, and biblical response. Simply quoting the Bible:
'In the beginning God created ... ' (Gen 1.1)
is inadequate in a sceptical and searching world. First of all, let's define the term as Darwin saw it.
In his work The Origin of Species, Darwin proposed that a mechanism of natural selection or survival of the fittest was operating in nature. The idea is that a species will adapt to its environment. For example, Darwin studied the beak sizes and shapes of finches in the Galapagos Islands and concluded that they were adapting to their environment. Similar variation in finches has been observed in recent studies; depending upon the availability of suitable food, those with genes for smaller or larger beaks tend to thrive. Another example is the 'peppered moth', where one variant has given way to another as the environment has changed over time. Darwin was indeed right in his theory of natural selection, but it is important to note that what is observed occurs within a single species. It is a widely accepted scientific fact that natural selection and mutation causes diversification within a species. This is Darwin's 'special theory' of microevolution.
Such variation is consistent with the biblical concept of 'created kinds':
'God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind ...' (Gen 1.25)
The implication is that there is variation within a particular species. Unfortunately, this variation is often mistaken to be evidence for evolution.
Darwin's 'general theory' of macroevolution is the real point at issue. This is the theory of gradual evolution between species (or kinds) - and is more widely known as 'The Theory of Evolution'. Here we look for transitional species between species. Evolutionists claim there is good evidence for this from biology, biogeography and paleontology (the study of fossils) [E.J.H. Cornor, Cambridge]. For example, it is claimed there are transitional fossils for lobopods (essentially worms without legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms [Conway Morris, 1998]. In fact, it is claimed:
'There is overwhelming scientific evidence for the Darwinian explanation of evolution. Evolution is a fact' [Richard Dawkins, Oxford Zoologist]
There are several problems with this statement. First, when Richard Dawkins claims that 'evolution is a fact', he is contradicting his own atheistic belief. Atheism not only maintains that God is non-existent, but it says that there is no ultimate truth (see What is Truth? and Reality). Atheism maintains that truth is culturally based and so it will vary with time - it is not transcendent and absolute. So how can Richard Dawkins claim that 'evolution is (absolutely) true?'
Secondly, whatever truth atheism accepts, it maintains that it must be scientifically provable; it must be observed and sensed. In short, it must be reality! Atheistic 'truth' needs overwhelming verification, either scientifically, logically, or historically. Can this really be said of evolution? Is this really a scientific fact, or is it still a theory? The theory requires extremely long time periods for simpler species to evolve to more complex forms, and for one species to evolve to another, and the only historical documentary evidence for this is the fossil record [C.O.Dunbar, Historical Geology]. If we discount the fossil record, then there is no historical evidence for the theory. But we would expect to see the evidence in fossils if the theory is true.
Even if so-called transitional fossils are found, we must bear in mind that we are dealing with a historical (changing) science, not a science that can be repeated in the laboratory. An interpretation of a fossil today can be replaced with a different interpretation tomorrow. A frequently used example is the well-ordered sequence of horse fossils, which is still sometimes claimed to be evidence of macroevolution. It was claimed that horses should be connected to monkeys, apes, rabbits etc. but no such connections have been found. The horse is simply an example of microevolution. Other examples of changing science are Peking Man, Neanderthal man, and Nebraska Man. Like the horse fossils, these turned out to be false interpretation.
Darwin stressed that the lack of transitional fossils was the most formidable obstacle to his theory, although he expected that many transitional fossils would be found. Indeed, shortly after his publication came the discovery of Archaeopteryx, a fossil specimen with the feathers, wings and beak of a bird, and the teeth, claws, unfused backbone and bony tail of a reptile. This seemed to be the ancestor of birds. But later discoveries have shown fossils of birds older than that of Archaeopteryx. Also there is no fossil evidence of reptilian scales developing into feathers, or legs evolving into wings. It seems Archaeopteryx could simply be a created kind, like other birds.
An interesting article appeared in Nature in 1993. It illustrated a hypothetical ancestral tree with a common ancestor at the bottom and descended modern species at the top. It modelled the common descent of primates from a common ancestor. The point is that the actual fossil record represented only some 3.4% of the assumed fossil record leading to modern primates! So the tree had sparse branches representing actually discovered fossils and most branches were assumed. Moreover, none of the 'true' branches (observed fossils) were connected to other 'true' branches and so transitional fossils were not present. Interpretation of such trees is difficult given the sparse sampling of true fossils. Even Huxley addmitted that supposed links can easily be wrong: "in dealing with fossils, (one) may mistake uncles and nephews for fathers and sons". The sparse sampling of such trees is also stressed by Stephen Gould:
'The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference ...' [Stephen Gould, Evolutionary Biologist, Harvard]
So despite the recovery of thousands of tons of fossils from all over the world, the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin are still missing [R. Carroll, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Mc Gill University]. In fact, it is found that many species appear for the first time already in an advanced state of development! This is the so-called 'Cambrian Explosion'; a relatively sudden appearance of a variety of fully formed complex creatures in the Cambrian rock strata. It is claimed that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time, and that earlier layers of the earth’s crust (Precambrian) show few if any precursor life forms [Morris and Parker, 1987][Natural History, 1986][Evolutionary Biology, 1985][Nature, 1995][Discover, 1993][Time, 1995]. To counter this, some evolutionist’s claim there is evidence of multicellular life before Cambrian, that there are transitional fossils within Cambrian, that none of the familiar groups such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects and spiders appear in Cambrian, and that many animal forms appeared after Cambrian [www.talkorigins.org]. Other emminant evolutionists admit there certainly is a problem with the fossil record, particularly with the low sampling level of fossils, and so discount it as evidence in favour of evolution:
'No good Darwinian’s belief in evolution stands on the fossil evidence for gradual evolution, so nor will his belief fall by it.' [Mark Ridley, Oxford Zoologist, New Scientist ]
'The known fossil record fails to document a single example of evolution accomplishing a major transition - every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change' [Stephen Gould, Evolutionary Biologist, Harvard, 1980 ]
'I still think that to the unpredjudiced the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation.' [E.J.H. Cornor, Cambridge]
What does the Bible have to say about fossils? Indirectly quite a lot, since it talks about a worldwide flood. Why is water so important? Well, fossilization typically occurs when organisms (either living or dead) are deposited from water into sediment. Sometimes the sediment solidifies making a cast of the organism. At other times the organic material is replaced by mineral to form a stony replica. The point is that conditions must be perfect for fossilization to occur - the burial of the organism and the hardening of the sediment must occur very quickly otherwise the usual decay process will destroy the organism before it can be fossilized. A catastrophic world-wide flood would provide such conditions, giving rapid fossilization as compared to the gradual and so less probable fossilization assumed by evolutionists. There is strong evidence for such a flood, as in the major coal deposits all over the world. Another strong indication of a catastrophic flood is found in 'polystrate fossils' (see www.creationsciencemovement.com). Here we see fossilized trees standing almost vertically and spanning multiple layers of coal. Now trees don't usually die vertically and don't last for millions of years in order for multiple coal deposits to accumulate!
There is also a theological argument against fossilization over hundreds of millions of years. Fossils involve death and suffering, but according to scripture death first entered the world through Adam's rebellion against God (Gen 2.17, 3.19). Before that the world was perfect (Gen 1.31). This implies that all fossilization occured after Adam's sin, and the worldwide flood could be the mechanism. Clearly, fossils would then be relatively recent, which points to possible problems in accepted dating methods.
There is a very important point here. If macroevolution is correct, then it undermines the important doctrine of original sin and the biblical explanation of death and suffering. It maintains that death and suffering are just natural processes in an imperfect natural world, and so undermines the need for salvation in Christ and the need for a Creator. This is the reason why atheists are so pro-evolution, despite the lack of historical evidence. Their science appears to be coloured by predjudice!. It is also worth noting that Buddhist, Hindu, Confucianist and Taoist philosophies are based on the theory of evolution.
Imagine a wilderness of wild grassland and woodland i.e. a random, unplanned distribution of nature. Now suppose you wished to turn it into a park. Besides the external energy source making things grow (the sun), you would need essentially two elements; an intelligent plan (information on how to do the work) and a mechanism to implement the work (workmen). Once the park was formed, you could carry on improving poor parts of the park, adding more complex displays of nature using further information and more workmen. In scientific terms we could say that the area of wild land has become more ordered and complex and has shown a decrease in entropy. But if we now left the park unattended for some time it would become less ordered and more random, exhibiting an increase in entropy. The information conveyed by a neat and orderly park would get lost in nature's random growth. In fact all observed things tend to show an increase in entropy with time (the car falls to pieces without maintenance for example). This universal law is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics and is even inferred in the Bible. Speaking of the earth and the heavens the psalmist says:
'... all of them will wear out like a garment' (Ps 102.26)
The biblical picture is one of perfect creation, followed by a continuous run down and increasing disorder (increasing entropy). To return to our analogy, although the park was being created (locally decreasing the entropy), overall the biosphere surrounding the park is still losing order and there is a net increase in entropy! Overall, the available energy to improve things and create order is decreasing.
So what has this to do with evolution? Quite a lot. The essence of Darwin's theory is that all living creatures descended from a single ancestor. All the plants, animals, and other organisms that exist today are products of random mutation and natural selection - or survival of the fittest. The theory maintains that the universe began in a random state and has gradually become more ordered and complex with time. It maintains that living systems increase in complexity with time and that, via natural selection and mutation, one species gradually changes to another. So macroevolution requires a world where entropy decreases and complexity increases with time, in direct conflict with the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that entropy increases and complexity declines. The usual reply to this charge is that nature is an 'open system' (has an external energy source, the sun) and that scientifically open systems can increase in complexity. For example, despite the Second Law, it is still possible to create a park from a random wilderness. All that is needed is:
For a complex living plant these are indeed present. The sun's energy is converted by photosynthesis and the genetic information is carried via the DNA in the genes making up the chromosomes. But DNA is an information carrying code and information does not emerge naturally from randomness. Where did it come from? Moreover, even though the plant meets the criteria for increasing complexity, we do not see a plant becoming a fish via natural selection or mutation! At best, natural selection may 'weed out' the harmful effects of mutation, but it cannot provide the necessary information to increase complexity. More importantly, how did the evolutionary process start? Where was the information carrying plan or the energy conversion mechanism in the first inorganic biochemical system that changed it to an organic system? How were these present in the first molecule? It is claimed that even the Journal of Molecular Evolution has failed to publish papers explaining how evolutionary life began at the molecular level! [Vardy and Arliss,'The Thinker's Guide to God'].
Another problem for evolution is the 'just right universe' concept. Instead of a randomly evolving universe, wherever we look the physical, chemical and biological conditions are 'fine-tuned' for life, implying that the universe is designed by an 'intelligence'. This is the so-called Anthropic Principle. For example, the following are just right for life:
Clearly, according to Einstein's E=mc2, even small changes in the velocity of light will lead to huge changes in energy or mass. This implies for example that stars would produce the wrong elements for life. If the proton mass increased by just 0.2% the proton would become unstable and decay. Since the hydrogen nucleus comprises just a single proton, then all hydrogen atoms would be destroyed, implying the destruction of water molecules etc. Gravitational force goes as the reciprocal of distance squared. The factor 2 here appears finely tuned and any variation from 2 would lead to decay of planetary orbits. And after studying the fine-tuning of the nuclear ground state energies of helium, beryllium, carbon, and oxygen, Fred Hoyle concluded that:
'a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology'
We might also ask: 'Since evolutionary theory maintains that order came out of randomness against a backdrop of the immutable laws of science, where did these laws come from? Surely they can't have evolved by chance too? Clearly this is not verifable science - it is simply a rather implausible theory.
If we attempt to compute the probability of all conditions being 'just right' for the evolution of life (the probability of the simplest replicating system arising by chance somewhere in our universe) the figure is vanishingly small. In fact, conservative probability calculations say that evolution is mathematically impossible within our universe.
In order to accommodate this mathematical difficulty evolutionists resort to the concept of 'an infinite number of universes' - the multiverse. The theory goes that with an infinite number, then even the improbable becomes possible. Richard Dawkins [Oxford Zoologist] argues it this way. Suppose you deal 10 cards from ten shuffled packs, and get say
QH, 3D, 9S, KH, 5C, 10C, AD, JS, 2H, 4S
This combination is highly improbable, but nevertheless you got it! He argues that we are just as lucky to be on one of the few universes where conditions happened to be just right for life! Apparently pure chance has been helped by the law of the survival of the fittest and that is why we are here.
'The chances of each of us coming into existence are infinitesimally small. We should count ourselves fantastically lucky to get our decades in the sun' [Richard Dawkins, Oxford Zoologist, Guardian 2006]
To counter this mathematical 'fudge', we could point out that the multiverse concept is so far unproved. It is just one more rather implausible theory.
To conclude; both mathematics (probability theory) and paleontology (fossils) say 'no' to macroevolution! Evolutionists admit this and generate the 'infinite number of universes' theory in order to accommodate their macroevolution theory. An alternative worldview is to see nature as 'designed' and the observed intelligence e.g. DNA information as coming from a Creator. According to the Bible this Creator designed the earth:
'I laid the foundation of the earth … (and) set its measurements' (Job 38.4,5)
Given the evidence for the truth of the Bible (see Reality) it is logical to follow up this biblical statement. Is 'creationism' true? The creationist worldview comes in two distinct forms; 'old-earth' creationalism and 'young-earth' creationism e.g. Answers in Genesis and Creation Science. The two forms date the earth in different ways and come up with dramatically different results. But both creationist views believe God created.
Bible quotations are from the New American Standard Bible
Related topics: Age of the Earth ; What is Truth? ; Reality; Apologetics ;