DOES EVOLUTION MAKE SENSE?

WHY EVOLUTION MAKE NO SENSE ABOUT CREATION. 

Darwinian Evolution explains human existence; we don’t need a
Creation 

What once was an easy starting point for Christian evangelism is now under attack by many in the scientific establishment. The Bible begins its message with the account of Creation. Creation is what makes us need the Bible’s message. God made us. We are accountable to him. If we have turned from him, we are under judgment and needy of a Savior. When Paul preached Christ in Athens, he stressed that there was one God who had created all people. “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands... From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places they should live” (Acts 17:24-26). Paul continues, explaining that because God made all people, we are all accountable to seek him and ripe for judgment because of our idolatry. Creation marks the starting point for the good news of Jesus Christ. People are responsible to God because God made them. But Creation is under attack today by many in the Darwinian establishment. How do Christians respond to the allegation that Darwinism has made creation an unnecessary assumption?
1. Darwinian evolution was not a factual scientific discovery. In 1859, Charles Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection and introduced into the western world the theory of macroevolution, of the evolution of all life from a single-celled organism, which itself would have evolved from non-living matter.
• It was not a discovery, but an old idea: The theory expounded by Darwin was not truly new. Various theories of evolution had existed in eastern religion, and the theory was already popular on a philosophical level among the intelligentsia of Darwin’s day. Discoveries imply that something actually exists that is now being uncovered.
• It was not scientific, but religious and philosophical: Darwin himself was not a scientist, and had no training in the sciences. His education had been in theology, not biology, and his agenda was religious, not scientific. Darwin’s goal was to provide a scientifically believable theory by which human existence could be explained without having to accept the existence of a God. In this sense, Darwin was a product of the Enlightenment, and what Modernity demanded—a secular explanation of life—the English theologian Darwin willingly provided.
• It was not factual, but hypothetical: Darwin was not proposing a theory to explain data. He had no data. Darwin documented no specific evolutionary mechanisms by which one species could change into another, for example, and he illustrated his work with no transitional forms between species. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. It is a hypothesis only—a hypothesis that is only valid if hard, objective, scientific data is presented with such a preponderance as to leave that theory the only logically consistent explanation of the data. 68
2. Life cannot come from non-life. The biggest problem with evolutionary science lies in evolution’s very first step. The probability of even one of the simplest single-celled organisms developing from non-living matter has been calculated at one chance in 10100,000,000,000. I have no clue how they got this number, but needless to say the chances are effectively zero. Even if this estimate of probability is significantly off, non-living matter simply could not have turned into a living being—even a simple living being— no matter how spicy the primordial soup was. And this statistic was calculated under ideal controlled conditions. How much more impossible would naturalistic evolution have been with human beings—not just single-celled organisms— and that under thoroughly un-ideal circumstances! Naturalistic evolution simply could never have happened—a conclusion an increasing number of non-Christians are beginning to realize.
3. Mutants aren’t progress. Mainstream evolutionists claim that the variations between species are the result of a process of natural selection whereby small mutations in the parent species over time add up to major differences—birds from reptiles, or mammals from fish. The problem with this logic is that it could only work if the entire change occurred at once. There are extreme limitations on the positive effects of mutations—mutations almost always end in sterile and weak animals that quickly die off. Natural selection is unable to provide a mechanism for evolutionary changes as large as new organs or new species in higher life forms For natural selection to work, each tiny change must itself produce a positive benefit that helps it—and not the parent line of the species—win out in the struggle to survive. The appearance of an eyeball, for example, would have had to include hundreds of individual mutations over time that would have eventually resulted in a complete eye. But what good is 5% of an eye? 5% of an eye does not give you even 5% vision—it is a useless mutation. What good is a fish with 7% of a lung? Or stubby, bumpy appendages that might one day evolve into legs? Such mutations would serve only as limitations. A small animal gradually developing wings would first have to develop proto-wings. Such forelimbs would likely become awkward for life on the ground long before they became helpful for gliding or flying.
4. Biochemical complexity trumps appearance-based claims. Often people have tried to pull the comparative morphology card on me. Comparative morphology is a fancy name for “look sort of alike”. It goes like this. Examine the appearance of a chimpanzee in the womb, and compare that with the appearance of a human in the womb. We look a lot alike. This kind of argument was more impressive before the molecular revolution of the 1960s. Now we can examine the chimp’s and the baby’s DNA, and there are lots of differences. Sure, some will add, there is a 99% genetic similarity between all primates. But that 1% is huge. And those percentages refer only to the appearance of the placement of the chemical “letters”—they don’t even hint at the vast difference in genetic content afforded by those letters. 69
Mere biological and physical similarity between living species does not necessarily imply common ancestry—it could imply a common Creator. Demonstrating that a similarity exists does not demonstrate how that similarity came to be. And the molecular revolution has demonstrated the incredible complexity of living systems at the molecular level. At the biochemical level, one finds a complex world of instruments comprised of innumerable interdependent and finely adjusted pieces. These manifold elements collaborate within carefully balanced systems. To alter even the tiniest part of any of these systems results in failure and death. There are natural limits to biological change, and the level of interdependence demonstrated by the various systems of life make evolution a biochemical impossibility. The various mutations within Darwin’s proposal would each have had to result in a working and balanced system. Indeed, as Michael Behe has argued in Darwin’s Black Box: The
Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, each species can only tolerate a very limited degree of evolution, regardless of the length of time involved. Each species has an irreducible complexity that prohibits change at the species level or higher.
5. The only hard evidence—the fossil record—supports creation,
not evolution.
• No transitional forms—Charles Darwin and the early evolutionists predicted that, as time passed, thousands of transitional forms would be found, intermediate steps between species. In fact, there would be hundreds of steps just between modern man and his man-ape ancestor, the “missing link” that was to bring the primates together. Charles Darwin himself warned that unless transitional forms could be found in the fossil record, the theory of evolution was worthless speculation. A century and a half later, not one such transitional form has been discovered for which one might make a watertight argument.
• Troubled Evolutionists—This lack of evidence troubles some of the world's leading evolutionists. In America, the question of evolution has become so politicized that lines have hardened and evolutionists are unwilling to admit the weakness of their theory. Outside of the American context, however, many of the leaders in evolutionary anthropology have questioned the very foundations of evolutionary theory. Dr. Cohn Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History, for example—respected for his book on evolution—commented on the lack of transitional forms in his own study: “If I knew of any (transitional forms), fossil or living, I certainly would have included them.” He went on to say, “I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument.” Solly Zuckerman, a leading researcher in this area, wrote in Beyond the Ivory Tower:
“If we exclude the possibility of creation, then obviously man must have evolved from an
ape-like creature. But if he did, there is no evidence of it in the fossil record.” Notice that Zuckerman accepts evolution, not because there is evidence for it, but because he cannot accept the only alternative—creation! 70 • Abrupt appearance followed by stasis—Leading evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould has admitted that in every species, the fossil record has shown us abrupt appearance followed by stasis, or stability. This is the very definition of creationism. Indeed, the evolutionary community is beginning to cease speaking of man's “family tree,” and is instead speaking of the “evolutionary lawn.” Man's family tree, you see, is a very barren tree indeed, with only modern man upon it. Leading anthropologist David Pilbeam has stated, “There is no clear-cut and inexorable pathway from ape to human being.” Richard Leakey, a leader in the field, has admitted that, if asked to draw man's family tree, he would draw a big question mark, for the evidence is just too scanty. Contrary to Darwin's expectations, there has been no evidence that any basic category of animal has ever changed into another basic category of animal. His theory
can be tested, and of millions of fossils, we see none of the forms necessary to establish evolution as more than speculation.
6. Punctuated Equilibrium is a cop-out for a failed theory. The lack of hard evidence for Darwinism has led to the development of the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium is a theory that suggests that species do exist in a condition of stasis. Evolution takes place in rapid spurts so quickly as to leave no evidence. This enables evolutionary science to continue without the need for empirical verification. The theory’s more ardent proponents have even suggested that one species lays an egg and a radically different species hatches—the hopeful monster theory—such that missing links are not needed. This is a convenient theory, since it would permit the fossil record to look just like creationists said it would look a century before punctuated equilibrium was first suggested! This is no longer science, but (atheistic) religion. Science deals with empirically verifiable facts and observations. Punctuated equilibrium was developed to justify a formerly verifiable theory after its verification failed. Punctuated equilibrium cannot verify itself—it argues from a lack of supporting data, an argument from silence.
7. Christians seek to synthesize science & Scripture (3 attempts).
• Attempt #1: Theistic Evolution—This view states that God is involved at every point in the evolutionary process, from non-living matter to single-celled organism to fish to lizard to monkey to man. Theistic evolutionists often believe that God made the first human beings by breathing a soul into a highly developed primate. Most theistic evolutionists also consider Adam and Eve to be mythical, which poses serious questions about the biblical foundation of their faith. Genesis presents an unbroken historical account beginning with Adam and continuing through to Joseph in Egypt. We do not “spiritualize” historical passages (see Lesson 7). The New Testament consistently regards Adam and Eve as historical figures, pointing out that Jesus descended from Adam (Luke 3:38). The chief biblical text which—in my opinion—rules out theistic evolution is Genesis 2:7. This text states that God breathed into clay and Adam “became” a living soul (nephesh chayah in the Hebrew). We can miss this parallel in the translation, but the animals had already become living souls (nephesh chayah) in Genesis 1:20 and 1:24. The fact that the text identifies Adam as 71 having “become” a nephesh chayah means that Adam was not formed from an existing primate.
• Attempt #2: Young Earth (Fiat) Creationism—This view states that God created the universe and all that is in it over the space of six 24-hour days sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. God made the universe with the appearance of great age, which accounts for the appearance that the universe is 15 billion years old, and the appearance that the earth is 4 billion years old. As an apologetic strategy, the tactic is to challenge the basis of modern science, including some of the laws of physics. The layering in the fossil record is understood to have been lain down by the Noahic flood, and they point out instances in which the strata at which fossils are found occasionally conflicts with the standard dating—human fossils below dinosaurs, etc. This approach also challenges the reliability of radiometric dating. The principle architects of this apologetic approach are Henry Morris and John Whitcomb, whose 1961 The Genesis Flood was instrumental in re-introducing young earth creationism into the modern church. Today, Morris’ organization The Institute for Creation Research in San Diego is the center of the young earth approach. Other figures include Ken Ham and Henry Morris, Jr. Many of their scientific claims, unfortunately, have been found to be questionable by some and at times even deceptive.
• Attempt #3: Old Earth (Progressive) Creationism—This view states that God's process of creating did not happen all at once. Rather, the seven days of Genesis 1 are seen as “God's days,” not as 24-hour periods. (Augustine argues for an old earth about AD 400, observing that the sun didn't exist to mark off days until day four). Over perhaps billions of years (the time determined by science, since Scripture does not tell us), God performed a series of direct creative acts, bringing about various kinds of life that prepared the earth for humanity, culminating in God's special creation of Adam and Eve (not from a pre-existing animal) at God’s appointed time. In this view, the universe may be very old, but man is still very young (as fossil and molecular evidence demonstrates). Proponents of this approach include Robert Newman and his Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, Alan Hayward, Michael Behe, Philip Johnson, and Hugh Ross, whose The Genesis Question is an impressive attempt to synthesize recent scientific discoveries with Genesis 1-11. I’ve come to believe that this approach has much in its favor. Does this position take Genesis 1-2 seriously? I think it does. The immediate context implies that the days of Genesis 1 are not 24-hour days, Genesis 2:4 referring to all seven days in the Hebrew as one day. These are anthropomorphic days (describing God's activity in human terms). God is pictured as the Great Potter, “forming” man out of dirt, “breathing” into man. Like a potter, God is pictured as creating during the day and resting from that work during the night (between evening and morning). This appears to be the main point to the language of “days.” The Hebrew word “day” (yom) can mean either what we speak of when we use the term “day” or an unspecified period of time, as in Job 20:28, Ps. 20:1, Pr. 11:4; 24:10; 25:13; and Ecc. 7:14. Remember: our literal reading of Scripture does not mean that we fail to recognize literary aspects of a passage. The literary structure of Genesis 1 may indicate that the strictly literalistic reading may not be intended, since the text has a strongly poetic quality and structure. The chapter is organized around God's forming and God's filling His universe, days that are parallel: DAYS OF FORMING DAYS OF FILLING Day 1: Light & darkness separated Day 4: Sun, moon & stars Day 2: Sky & waters separated Day 5: Fish & birds 72 Day 3: Land (with plants) & seas separated Day 6: Animals & man 73
Classical Darwinism
time
Young Earth Creationism
time
Punctuated Equilibrium
time
Old Earth Creationism
time
The fossil record reveals the abrupt appearance of the various species over many hundreds of millions of years, followed by their extinction. The fossil record does not reveal a gradual transformation of one species into another—as traditional Darwinism would postulate. Indeed, we simply cannot trace the ancestry of a species from one general type of animal to another. But—assuming modern dating techniques have at least some level of accuracy—the fossil record does not reveal the abrupt appearance of all species at the same time, as the young earth creationist approach has proposed. Still, the appearance of any given species would appear to be abrupt, rather than gradual—data that could fit either a punctuated equilibrium evolutionary model or an old earth creationist model. Still, punctuated equilibrium, a theory developed to cover the embarrassing lack of evidence for Darwinism, has trouble on biological grounds. The total lack of fossil evidence for radical evolutionary changes would require a nearly immediate and total evolution within one generation—a process perhaps possible for some simple organisms, but far exceeding the natural limits of biological change in more highly developed organisms.