Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter
Chapter 11 - The Core Scientific Argument for Creation and against Evoluton
We have now considered the major fields of biological evidence pertinent to the creation/evolution controversy. We can see that a crucial problem confronts members of the secular scientific establishment. They assume for themselves, and wish to prove to us all, that amoeba-to-man evolution is a fact of earth history. Their problem is posed by the unnumbered complex biological designs displayed by all micro-organisms, plants and animals. How could such marvels of high technology applied to solve hard problems have come into being entirely by chance, without a Master Designer? Just a few of these wonders are described in Chapter 2 of this book. There is no testable scientific theory that explains the evolution, for example, of a hair follicle, the immune system, or the organ of Corti in the mammalian ear. Nor is there fossil evidence to prove that they evolved.

It is our view that this central failure of evolutionary science provides the basis for the most powerful argument against evolution and for creation. It is the argument from design in modern form. It is given below in outline, supported by recent references to the pertinent scientific literature. Our readers are invited to use this argument with anybody who will listen. It can be photocopied or otherwise reproduced and circulated wherever it may help open minds to the claims of Jesus Christ by whom the Father "made the worlds."1

A. What the theory of evolution proposes

1. In some ancient puddle, lake or ocean, life began when chance chemical reactions produced the first single-celled organism, some kind of self-reproducing bacterium.

2. These bacteria were able to reproduce themselves by cell division, but with occasional very slight changes(called mutations) from generation to generation.

3. Very gradually, very slowly, this process of change was able to "create" new complex biological designs.

4. In some three billion years the original single-celled organisms were able to change step-by-step as follows:

single cell -- many-celled worm without a backbone -- worm with a backbone -- fish -- amphibian -- reptile with scales -- mammal with hair -- ape -- university professor.

5. This process obviously had to "create," one after the other, thousands of new, complex designs, in order to change a bacterium into a university professor.

6. Evolutionary science must prove this happened and explain how. The origin of complex new biological designs is the crucial problem facing evolutionary scientists.

B. What is required to prove the case of evolution to you and to me?

1. Show us thousands of fossil series to prove that a slow process of evolution "created," one after the other, thousands of new complex biological designs. For example, show us a series of fossils to document the gradual step-by-step evolution of a backbone. Or a series of fossils to show the step-by-step evolution of reptile scales into mammals' fur or bird feathers. In fact, show us just one such fossil series anywhere in the fossil record. We need more than just one or two "missing links" to stick in the middle of a huge gap in the fossil record.

2. Devise an experimentally testable theory of evolution to explain how mechanisms of genetics and embryonic development "created" a backbone or changed reptile scales into mammals' fur or bird feathers.

3. Show us the evolution of complex new biological designs happening in nature today. After all, supposedly "[t]he unifying theory of biology is evolution."2 So why can't we see it happening today? Why can't we see new complex biological designs in the process of evolving in living species?

C. Have the requirements of Section B above been achieved by evolutionary science?

NO!

1. The beginning of life has been neither explained theoretically nor demonstrated experimentally.3

2. Not even one sequence of fossils has been found which demonstrates that slow, gradual evolutionary change ever "created" a single new complex biological design.4,5,6

3. There is no experimentally testable theory to explain the "creation" of complex new biological designs by evolution.7

4. The required theories and the mechanisms of genetics and embryonic development that "create" new biological designs have not been identified and demonstrated experimentally.8,9

5. The "creation" of complex new biological designs by evolution has not been observed in nature. All that is observed is limited variations of what already exists.10

D. Conclusions

So long as the required reproducible scientific evidence continues to elude evolutionist enthusiasts, their grand evolutionary scenario -- from amoeba to man -- remains a faith proposition. Furthermore, all of their failures constitute circumstantial evidence for faith in divine special creation of the complex biological designs of living things. Secularist persecution and exclusion of Christian believers in creation should cease at once in the halls of academia -- in the interest of correct, philosophically neutral science. And in the science classrooms at all levels there should be an end to indoctrination in darwinian dogmas. Everything in science must be perpetually open to critical evaluation.
Table of Contents / Previous Page / Next Page
References

1 Hebrews 1:2. The word "worlds" is the Greek word aionas meaning ages. Through Christ the Son the Father created not only the universe but also His entire plan for the ages.

2 Science Framework for California Public Schools, Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve (California State Board of Education, Sacramento, 1990), p. 126.

3 Horgan, John, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, Vol. 264, No. 2, Feb. 1991, pp. 116-125. Subtitle: "Scientists are having a hard time agreeing on when, where and -- most important -- how life first emerged on the earth." On p. 125 Prof. Stanley Miller of U.C. San Diego, "Mr. Origin of Life," expresses a hope that he or some other scientist will some day repeat life's origin in the laboratory:

"I think we just haven't learned the right tricks yet. When we find the answer, it will probably be so d----d simple that we'll all say, 'Why didn't I think of that before?'"

4 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (J. M. Dent, London, 1972), p. 441.

"...geological research...does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory; and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it."

5 Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, 86, June-July, 1977, pp. 22, 24.

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."

6 Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution (Freeman, San Francisco, 1977), p. 39.

"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution [i.e., a species becoming a new species] accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."

7 Lewis Wolpert, "Do We Understand Development?" Science, 266, 28 Oct. 1994, p. 572. "So what will the next 20 years bring? ...Even so, we do not yet have an example where we understand in detail the development of a single adult organ. ....We can also look forward to great progress in the area of evolution and development. ....We may then see the solution to grand problems like...how basic body plans emerged...and the origin of developmental novelty. [Note: "the origin of developmental novelty" means the evolution of complex, new biological designs.]"

8 Jean Marx, "Homeobox Genes Go Evolutionary," Science, 255, 24 Jan. 1992, p. 399.

"It [i.e., homeobox gene research] is starting to bring together developmental and evolutionary biologists, a merger that is badly needed, considering the intractability of certain evolutionary puzzles, such as the long-standing quandary of how the body plan of multi-celled organisms arose."

9 Ibid., p. 401. "While the final marriage of developmental biology and evolutionary theory is clearly some way off, perhaps one day it will produce an offspring that can explain, in satisfying molecular detail, how new species evolved."

10 No example has been observed in nature or in the laboratory of a new complex biological structure or organ appearing in any species by a spontaneous evolutionary process. Neither is there in any species an example of a biological structure that can be understood as a partly evolved structure that is on the way to becoming a new complex biological structure. Some plants are highly variable, and intelligent humans have selectively bred and cross-bred plants to produce strikingly different varieties and forms. It is probable that ancient wild teosinte and modern corn varieties are at least to some degree an example of this.

Previous PageTable of ContentsNext Page