Chapter 4 - What about the Scienntific Evidence for Evolution?

In this Series, I want to help clarify the issues concerning Creation and Evolution so that we are not intimidated by all the voices in the world that claim Evolution is an established scientific fact, mocking any attempt to question it. Today we will consider the common claim that ‘Evolution is Science’, and so is not to be questioned.

We are all so impressed with the power and results of Experimental Science, that we would never seriously question its validity. So if it were actually true that Evolution was Science, then we would not be able deny it, but is it Science? I will now explain why Evolution is emphatically NOT Science!

Now I realise that I have made a big claim in challenging that widely held view that Evolution is Science, and hence that Evolution is a fact. I will explain what is behind that claim.

First we need to be clear what Science is and how it works.
Science is the objective study of the uniform nature and the laws of the material universe through modelling and experimentation. By definition it is limited to the observable and testable. A scientific Hypothesis is a model for the way things work. It should be testable and falsifiable. That is, it must make predictions which can either be proved or disproved by experiment and observation. If it builds up a track record of successful predictions then it attains the status of a Theory, and it is then provisionally accepted until something better comes along.

How does Evolution do when compared to this scientific standard?
‘Molecules to Man Evolution’, where life-forms increase in complexity by themselves, has never been observed in real-life, even on a tiny scale! Everytime you are told about something evolving into someting else, whether it is fish to amphibians, or amphibians to reptiles or reptiles to mammals or birds to dinosaurs or monkeys to men, these are pure hypothetical stories. They are stated as fact because they must be true if Evolution actually happened, and in their mind it must have happened. However nothing of this nature where one life-form evolves into a higher, more complex life-form has ever been observed in real-life!

Evolutionists know this is true, but thay explain that we have not yet had enough time to observe it happening, even on a small scale, since Evolution takes millions of years. Fine, but please don’t pretend that Evolution is observed scientific fact when it is NOT.

EVOLUTION is not at all the same as Natural Selection.
Now you may be thinking that you were told about real examples of Evolution, but I can guarantee that all you were given were examples of NATURAL SELECTION, and you were probably given the false impression that these were actually examples of Evolution. Now Natural Selection is the rather obvious process whereby animals with certain characteristics that help them survive in their environment are more likely to mate and pass on those characteristics. So those better adapted to their environment are more successful in passing on their genes and as a result their characteristics (such skin colour, length of beaks etc) become more dominant in the population. But this is NOT EVOLUTION!

Evolution is the extraordinary claim that Natural Selection acting on random mutations (genetic abnormalities) over millions of years explains how an single-celled amoeba becomes a man, how higher forms of life descend from lower ones. This has never been observed, so even if you believe it, how can you call it Science?

Not only has Evolution never been seen happening in the PRESENT, but there is no record of it ever happening in the PAST! If it actually did happen in the PAST, then this should be clearly observable when we look at the Fossil Record. If Evolution were true then there should be a clear trail of evidence in the Fossil-Record showing lower-forms of life changing into a higher-forms over millions of years. There should be multiple thousands of intermediate transitional forms as each life-form gradually changed into a higher life-form. With all the changes that had to take place gradually over immense periods of time as Evolution progressed, the Fossil-Record should be filled with clear Transitional Forms.If we can actually see Evolution happening in this way in the Fossil Record, then it would be fair enough to call it Science.

In fact this is the main prediction of Evolution and therefore it is the main way that we can TEST its validity as a Scientific Theory, because the Fossil Record predicted by Evolution would look quite different from the Fossil Record predicted by Creation and the world-wide Flood of Noah. This was a genuine test because when Darwin proposed Evolution the Fossil Record was largely unknown. As we said before, by definition, any Scientific Hypothesis must make predictions by which we can test it, to see if it is right or wrong. Darwin himself realised that the presence or absence of Transitional Forms in Fossil Record provided the key test of his Theory, and he expected the fossil evidence would ultimately prove his idea to be true. By now sufficient time has passed and sufficient fossils have been found to determine if Darwinian Evolution has passed or failed its main test.

Undeniably Evolution has failed this TEST. In reality, there is a total lack of these intermediate transitional forms! The evidence that should be there in the fossil-record is in fact missing and massively so, as we should have found hundreds of thousands of clear transitional forms by now. In fact, the game is really now up on Evolution, since our knowledge of the fossil record is now sufficiently complete to deduce that there is a total, wide-scale absence of the transitional-forms that Darwinian Evolution requires and predicts. Despite 150 years of fossil hunting and the discovery of millions of fossils all over the world, the missing links are still missing in massive numbers. As one Evolutionist said: “999 out of 1000 frames of the picture of Evolution are missing.” Even the 1000th frame is questionable, since this refers to the odd unusual find that is interpretated as a Transitional Form more through wishful thinking than anything else. Each example is more easily interpreted as a variation within a kind trather than a transition from kind to a higher kind. As Evolutionist Dr. Patterson admitted:
“it is hard to contradict those who say there are no transitional fossils.... I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”

However one may interpret the odd unusual fossil, the main message of the Fossil Record is clear. There is a sudden appearance in great variety of many different highly complex forms without any sign that they descended from earlier forms. Each major kind of creature suddenly appears, with its characteristics complete and sharp boundaries separating major taxonomic groups, with no signs of an evolutionary ancestors. While being consistent with Creation, this clearly contradicts the predictions of Evolution, which should lead to the rejection of Evolution as a Theory, if we were being objective. Evolution predicts the gradual change of simple forms into more and more complex forms, with TRANSITIONAL series of forms linking all categories and no systematic gaps. But there are simply NO clear TRANSITIONAL FORMS observable between lower and higher catagories of life.

Even Charles Darwin knew this was a major problem of his theory, saying: “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain and this perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.” After 150 years this problem of missing-links is even greater than it was in Darwin’s time, for by now thousands of clear transitional forms should have been found, but the missing links on the evolutionary tree are still very much missing, not just in one or two places, but systematically missing, wherever you look. In other words, in the pictures they show of the Evolutionary Tree, all that is actually observable in real life and in the Fossil-Record are the tips of the branches, but the branches (transitions) themselves are merely hypothetical.

What kind of change is actually seen in living nature and in the fossil record? Is it the kind of change predicted by Creation or the change claimed by Evolution? Does the actual evidence show ‘molecules to man’ Evolution or simply variation within a kind? Do we see an evolutionary trail of creatures transforming ever upward into higher, more complex life-forms? Or do we just see horizontal changes without increases in complexity, as Creationism predicts? All that is actually observable is the kind of change predicted by Creation. What we actually see in living nature and in the fossil record is a variety of kinds of highly developed life-forms that suddenly appeared in their present level of complexity, without any signs of being the product of an evolutionary ascent from lower forms. Within each kind there are many varieties that derive from a common ancestor, but there is no evidence of one kind changing into a higher kind, as Evolution would have it.

In Summary, it is either ignorance or deliberate deception to call Evolution Science, since it fails at all points to meet the established criteria that define what Science is.
* Evolution is not observable in the PRESENT.
* Neither is it observable in the PAST through the Fossil-Record.
* Rather Evolution has failed its key TEST. Its primary prediction is that the Fossil-Record should show an abundance of transitional forms connecting higher life-forms to their evolutionary ancestors.
But this prediction has now manifestly failed, which proves that the Hypothesis of Darwinian Evolution must be false.

Therefore not only does Evolution lack any supporting scientific evidence, but it contradicts the actual evidence that we do have. So not only can we say that Evolution is NOT proven SCIENCE, we can go further and say that it is a failed scientific Hypothesis that should be denied the status of being a Theory. Therefore we have to deduce that it is just a hopeful story of higher forms developing from lower forms, that has turned out to be untrue.

To cap it all off, it has just been announced by a leading evolutionist Prof. Steve Jones that human Evolution has now stopped! The news headlines said: “Human Evolution is grinding to a halt, according to a leading genetics expert. Professor Steve Jones from the Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment at University College London, believes the mechanisms of Evolution are winding down in the human race.” 

It is amazing that we are expected to believe that Evolution is Scientific Fact even though it has never been observed in the PAST nor in the PRESENT, and now apparently it is not going to be observed in the FUTURE either, since it has now stopped! Give me a break! This would be amusing, if it were not so sad that so many believe the propaganda! Clearly Evolution is not Science, and no amount of declarations that it is Science, can change the truth.

What about the so-called Scientific Evidence for Evolution?
Let us now deal with the other main strands of evidence for Evolution that you may come across. I recently watched Richard Dawkins’ Presentation on Evolution on TV called ‘the Genius of Darwin.’ It was clearly designed to persuade us of the wonder and truth of Evolution, so I was sure he would bring forth the best of the evidence he had for it. So I watched it expecting to hear what was considered to be the main evidence for Evolution. I was curious to see if any real positive evidence would be produced.

As to be expected, the program kept repeating the mantra that: ‘Evolution is a fact’ with allusions to the abundance of evidence that supported that claim, implying that anyone who questioned it was stupid. However the actual evidence presented was thin. But I could discern 4 main lines of evidence that were alluded to, so let us consider this so-called evidence:

*(1) The similarity of life forms in many of their structures and in their DNA points to there being one evolutionary tree of life.
For example many different kinds of animals have legs, eyes etc. Does not this indicate they must have had a common ancestry? Dawkins was particularly impressed by recent progress in mapping the Genome, pointing out how all living things have DNA as the blueprint for their bodies, and that animals that seem very different from each other nevertheless have a lot of DNA in common. To him this was clear proof that all life-forms have a common ancestry.

However this is not as impressive as it might seem, because this is also predicted by Creation. If there is ONE Designer and Creator of all life, we would expect Him to use a trademark uniformity of design, as well as great diversity within that, just like a human painter or designer can be recognised by his work. This perfectly accounts for the universal use of DNA and the use of similar structures across many kinds of animals. The amount of DNA we share in common with other creatures is understandable in that we share so many of the physical processes needful for life with them (although we may be more aware of the differences), so that naturally we will in many respects share alot of DNA in common.

If there is a unity of design, there are 2 possible explanations:
1. Common Descent - all descended from the same original.
2. Common Designer - all were made by one designer.

*We have a Table Mats that have a similar design, but all with pictures of different scenes from Oxford on them, like the Sheldonian and Ashmolian and Blenheim Palace. Looking at them, they are all different, but their similar design can’t be accidental. It must be explained. Now one possibility is that originally there was one kind of mat, but over the years as the master was copied, and then copies were made from that copy and so on down the generations, small changes accumulated (a line added here and marking lost there) causing the picture to gradually change until a new distinct picture was formed. That is one explanation of how all these mats look similar but have different pictures - a common ancestry. But there is another explanation - a common designer! They are similar because one artist designed them all, using a trademark style. Therefore the similarities among the varieties of life is not in itself a proof of them possessing a common ancestry. It could also be the result of them having a common Creator.

How could we tell if the mats had a common ancestry or a common Creator? If all the mats descended from one original mat through small variations happening in each generation of copies, then we would expect to see many transitional mats! We would not just have the Sheldonian mat and the Blenheim Palace mat, but also many mats with some kind of intermediate picture that had features of both, showing how one picture was in the process of changing into another. In fact most of the mats would be fuzzy intermediate forms! If however the mats had a common Creator we would expect a distinct number of well-defined mats without any transitional forms. I am sure you have already used this logic to deduce that these mats have a common designer rather than a common ancester! Now apply the same logic to the different kinds of life on earth, whose similarities are best explained by a common Creator rather than by a common ancester.

Why did God just use the one basic blueprint of DNA for all life-forms? In the totality of His Creation He is revealing His Character and declaring His Glory. Therefore it was necessary for Him to declare His Unity by using one fundamental kind of blueprint for life (DNA), within which He could also display a great variety and diversity of creative designs. If God had used many totally different kinds of blueprints, He would send the wrong biotic message, that there are many gods (designers) who each had a part in the creation. God revealing His Unity in His Creation also explains why we have a Uni-verse rather than a multi-verse, that is we live in a universe that has a consistent and universal set of laws wherever you go. (This is the basis for the whole successful scientific endeavour).

Likewise the unity of many characteristics across different kinds of animals and plants is perfectly consistent with a single Creator, Who while displaying His Wisdom in so many creative variations, also consistently reveals His Unity, by using similar structures to perform similar functions in a variety of different creatures. (But unity of design features within kind is due to common descent).

*(2) Creation of new Species by Artificial and Natural Selection. Sometimes Evolutionists claim that new species are being produced today, both through selective breeding (Artificial Selection) and Natural Selection within isolated populations, and that imply that this is real Evolution is happening. But this is totally misleading. Now all that can be achieved is for animals to be inbred (naturally or artificially) to the point where they can no longer mate with the original population. Then the biologists say: “Behold, a new species”, but this is nothing to do with evolution to a higher level of complexity, it is simply variation within the KIND.

It is important to realise that the modern word ‘SPECIES’ (defined by their ability to interbreed) is NOT what the Bible means by a ‘KIND’. A Biblical ‘Kind’ contains many modern ‘Species.’ The Kinds were God’s original Templates (so there is the CAT kind, the DOG or WOLF-kind, the MAN-kind etc), so that although much variation is possible within each kind, change from one kind to another is impossible. This has never been contradicted by the evidence. Thus there are now many different types of dogs and cats descended from the original pairs, but you will never see 2 dogs producing a cat! In fact change by chance mutations from one kind to a new higher kind is impossible by the established Laws of Information Theory, which say that systems by themselves can only lose information (complexity) and never gain it. This clearly makes upward Evolution by random mutations impossible.

In fact observation of Natural Selection and attempts to accelerate Evolution by Artificial Selection (breeding) and induced mutations has shown that although great diversity is possible, there are always LIMITS to change, in perfect agreement with the Bible’s division of the animal kingdom into KINDS. Never has an evolutionary change from one KIND to a higher KIND been observed.  God has given each Kind a great genetic richness giving it the ability to change and adapt to different environments, but He has also set boundaries beyond which change is impossible. This agrees with the repeated statement in Genesis 1 that He made each kind of plant and animal to reproduce: “according to its kind.”

Actually it has been observed that mutations and artificial breeding only accelerate the deterioration of the genetic make up. Things are DEVOLVING not EVOLVING! This is called genetic entropy.

*(3) Poor Design. I mention this only briefly as I will deal with it more fully later in the Series. This argument used to focus on vestigial organs like the appendix, that is organs which appear to have no use, and therefore are best explained as the accidental by-products of Evolution rather than the product of a perfect Creation.

However the list of vestigial organs has got much shorter as we have realised that these organs do have valuable uses, including the appendix, which we now know helps deal with bacteria entering the intestines, and tonsils which increase resistance to throat infections. Moreover although the Bible says that everything was originally created GOOD, it does not claim that it stayed that way, but rather due to the Fall, life on earth has come under a curse and has degenerated. Loss of genetic information and mutations over the years make it quite possible that organs in various types of animals have lost some or much of their original function, and certainly nothing works perfectly according to its original design. As Scadding, an Evolutionist said:
“Vestigial organs provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.”

However this argument of bad or inefficient design seems to have now gone in a new and foolish direction, as Dawkins and an evolutionist friend tried to explain how badly designed our EYES are, and therefore they must have been evolved rather than created! At this time I can’t go into the details of the human EYE, but it should be clear to anyone how amazing and versatile our eyes are, in seeing in 3D stereo-vision, in bright and dim light, close and distant objects, both small and great. Nothing made by man can come close to the human eye, so it seems to me quite foolish to try and use an object of such beauty and complexity of flexible design as an argument against the Creator!

Anyone designing a finite object has to work within limits and make compromises: What must it do? Should it be specialised to do one task very well, or be adaptable to be able to do many tasks? Many balances have to be made, such as between long-life and safety, or high-performance and a shorter life. Something that is necessary to one aspect of its functioning might impede another aspect, so the designer has to prioritise and balance these things.

A Formula 1 racing car might seem a more perfect design than a normal family car, because it can do one thing very well (going fast), but this comes at the cost of many other things which have to be sacrificed, such as ease of use, fuel efficiency, safety, comfort, longevity and so on, which would make it a terrible car to use in normal life. The family car which balances many factors is actually far better designed for general use, even if it seems less than perfectly designed when compared to a racing-car in terms of its speed. If someone said your car was badly made because it is much slower than a racing-car you would see the fallacy in that argument.

So the kind of argument that says that God’s design of the body is imperfect, because He could have made a certain part with a greater ability to perform some specialised function is invalid. However well a machine is designed, you could always apply this kind of argument, but enhancing one aspect would come at the cost of something else that is also important. Also, remember the more complex that something is, the more ways it can go wrong.

The Designer has to find the right balance, so that it has the best conbination of qualities necessary to fulfil the function for which it is being made. We might as well ask: “why don’t we have 3 ears to hear better, 2 noses to smell better, or 4 legs to run faster with?” I submit that anyone who cannot see the human body as anything but an amazing masterpiece of highly complex and advanced design, way beyond anything that man has acheived, is being deliberately blind! The body is highly adaptable to many different situations and demands, with multiple-systems all coordinated and working together, made to be long-lasting and self-repairing, and we are seeing it now in its fallen condition! What it would have been like before sin entered the world staggers the imagination, but in the resurrection our bodies will be glorified and it will then enter into the total perfection that God has always intended for it!

*(4) The Fossil Record.

We have seen that this actually supports Creation over Evolution.

The Creation Model predicts sudden appearance in great variety of highly complex forms. It predicts the sudden appearance of each created type with characteristics complete and sharp boundaries separating major taxonomic groups. It predicts NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS between higher categories.

On the other hand, Evolution predicts a gradual change of simple forms into more and more complex forms, with TRANSITIONAL series of forms linking all categories and no systematic gaps.

What we see agrees with the Creation Model over and against Evolution. Darwin himself knew of the total lack of transitional forms, but proposed as a test of Evolution that when more fossils were found the transitional forms would be discovered. (Remember any scientific theory must be testable and if it makes a false prediction it must be rejected). Any other theory would have been thrown out long ago if it had the kind of problems Evolution had! 150 years later the missing links are still missing! Embarrassing!

To explain why there are no Transitional Forms, Evolutionists have now come up with Neo-Darwinism that admits there are no Transitional forms, and explains this by saying that Evolution must have ‘jumped’ over the gaps. However they can’t explain why it jumped, as this is contrary to what we would expect from genetics. So they say that Evolution happened, but in such a way that it left no trace in the Fossil Record, and no evidence that it happened. Thus Evolution is proving to be untestable and unfalsifiable, because having failed the test, it has redesigned itself so that it can’t be proved false. It won’t listen to or accept any evidence that disproves it. But if it is untestable and unfalsifiable it cannot be called a scientific theory. Even when people come to realise the lack of evidence for Evolution, many will continue to believe it as a religious dogma, because fundamentally it is foundational to their whole philosophy of life. It is their religion. As L. T. More said: “The more one studies Palaeontology the more certain one becomes that Evolution is based on faith alone.”

So, the ‘so-called’ evidence claimed for Evolution is just not there. Actually it is contradicted by the evidence. It is not Scientific fact! So, if you believe in Evolution, fine, that’s your choice, but please be honest and don’t call it observed scientific fact, when it is NOT!