Information Related to "Evolution: Fact or Fiction?"
| Audio/Video |
Evolution:
Fact or Fiction?
Are scientists quietly discarding Darwin's venerable theory of the origin of the
species? The Good News continues its examination of creation and evolution.
How solid is the evidence supporting natural selection and evolution? Can they be
proven?
by Mario Seiglie
How did the theory of evolution gain
such wide acceptance? Is the evidence for it all that sound? What has science discovered
to back up the theory? Is there consensus among many scientists in support of this
theory?
Almost 140 years have passed since Charles Darwin's treatise on evolution, On
the Origin of Species, appeared in 1859. Science has advanced greatly since those
horse-and-buggy days. A vast amount of additional information is readily available.
Surprisingly enough, as we near the end of the 20th century, the controversy about
evolution is increasing. Remarkably, much of this debate is taking place among scientists.
Heated Discussion on Evolution
Francis Hitching, a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, gives a general
view of the debate to date: "In April 1882, Charles Darwin died peacefully of a heart
attack at his family home in Kent, England. His great theory, the basis of all modern
biology teaching, had come to be accepted with a fervor close to reverence . . .
Yet as 1982 approached, and with the centenary of his passing, change was in the
wind. Feuds concerning the theory of evolution exploded rancorously in otherwise
staid and decorous scientific journals.
"Entrenched positions, for and against, were established in high places, and insults
lobbed like mortar bombs from either side. Meanwhile the doctrine of Divine creation,
assumed by most scientists to have been relegated long ago to the pulpits of obscure
fundamentalist sects, swept back into the classrooms of American schools. Darwinism
is under assault on many fronts" (The Neck of the Giraffe, 1982, p. 7).
Why the confusion and contention? Simply put, the increasing scientific evidence
doesn't fit the Darwinist model, and many evolutionists find themselves on the defensive.
How has this come about? It has happened mainly because the three primary supposed
proofs of the theory have not held up to further discovery and scrutiny.
Darwinism Not the Same as Evolution
A word of caution on the use of the term evolution: It can mean different
things to different people. The dictionary first defines evolution as a process of
change from lower to a higher state and, second, as the theory Darwin advocated.
But they are not the same. Evolution literally means simply the successive
appearances of perfectly formed life without regard to how they got there. It does
not have to refer to Darwinism, which is the doctrine that gradual change led to
one species becoming another through the process of natural selection and random
mutation.
A species is generally defined as a living thing that can reproduce only after its
own kind. So, although most scientists mean Darwinism when they use the term evolution,
the two definitions of the term are not synonymous and should be carefully defined
by the context.
"Why is it," asks physicist Alan Hayward, ìthat the terms 'Darwinism' and 'evolution'
are so often used (wrongly) as if they meant the same thing? Simply because it was
Darwin who put the old idea of evolution on its feet. Before Darwin, evolution was
regarded by most people as a wild, unbelievable notion. After Darwin, evolution seemed
such a reasonable idea that the general public soon took it for granted.
"Many people since Darwin's day have tried to find an alternative explanation of
evolution, but none has succeeded. Just as when he first proposed it, Darwin's appears
the only conceivable method of evolution. It still seems that Darwinism and evolution
must stand or fall together" (Creation and Evolution, 1985, p. 5).
This is a reason many Darwinists are so adamant about their theory. They know the
implications if they fail: The alternative explanation of life on earth is a Creator
God. Professor L.T. More has candidly admitted in his book The Dogma of Evolution:
"Our faith in the doctrine of Evolution depends upon our reluctance to accept the
antagonistic doctrine of special creation (creation by God)" (quoted by Francis Hitching,
The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 109).
Three Supposed Proofs for Evolution
Darwinism is built on a foundation of three supposed proofs. If these are shown
to be in error, the theory collapses.
The first and foremost supposed proof is the fossil record. Darwin and other proponents
of his theory were sure they would find the transformation of species clearly demonstrated
in the fossil strata.
Darwin was well aware of the importance of the fossil record to sustain his theory
even though he was perplexed with the evidence discovered to date during his lifetime.
He admitted the inadequate fossil evidence. "The number of intermediate varieties,
which have formerly existed on the earth, must be truly enormous. 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 gravest objection which can be urged against my theory" (On
the Origin of Species, 1909, pp. 319-320).
Darwin ultimately attributed this lack of evidence to "the extreme imperfection"
of the fossil record as it was known in his time. He was confident that geologists
and paleontologists would eventually find such transitional fossils and confirm his
theory. Thomas Huxley, one of the great proponents of Darwinist theory, considered
the fossil record to be the only direct proof of evolution. From its findings, he
said, the theory would stand or fall.
The second supposed proof offered by Darwinists is natural selection, which they
hoped biologists would confirm. "Just as the breeders selected those individuals
best suited to the breeder's needs to be the parents of the next generation," explained
British philosopher Tom Bethell, "so, Darwin argued, nature selected those organisms
that were best fitted to survive the struggle for existence. In that way evolution
would inevitably occur. And so there it was: a sort of improving machine inevitably
at work in nature, 'daily and hourly scrutinizing,' Darwin wrote, 'silently and insensibly
working . . . at the improvement of each organic being.' In this way, Darwin
thought, one type of organism could be transformed into another--for instance, he
suggested, bears into whales. So that was how we came to have horses and tigers and
things--by natural selection" (Tom Bethell, "Darwin's Mistake,î The Craft of Prose,
1977, p. 309 ).
Finally, the third supposed proof of the theory, which others added after Darwin's
death, is random mutation. Toward the end of his life, Darwin grew increasingly doubtful
that natural selection alone could explain evolution. Yet, at the turn of the century,
the laws of inheritance were discovered, and scientists viewed random mutation, combined
with natural selection, as the means by which different species could arise. This
theory was to be called neo-Darwinism.
These are still the three major proofs scientists offer in support of Darwinism.
How have they held up? Let's examine the facts.
The Fossil Evidence
With the passing of almost 140 years since the introduction of Darwin's theory,
what have the experts found in the fossil record? Certainly not the gradual links
Darwin had predicted. After an immense worldwide search by geologists and paleontologists,
the "missing links" Darwin predicted would be found to bolster his theory are still
missing.
Says Newsweek magazine: "In 1972 (paleontologists Stephen Jay) Gould and Niles
Eldredge collaborated on a paper intended at the time merely to resolve a professional
embarrassment for paleontologist: their inability to find the fossils of transitional
forms between species, the so-called 'missing links.' Darwin, and most of those whose
followed him, believed that the work of evolution was slow, gradual and continuous
and that a complete lineage of ancestors, shading imperceptibly one into the next,
could in theory be reconstructed for all living animals . . . But a century
of digging since then has only made their absence more glaring . . . It
was Eldredge and Gould's notion to call off the search and accept the evidence of
the fossil record on its own terms" ("Enigmas of Evolution,î March 29, 1982, p. 39).
If the fossil record does not show clear evidence in support of Darwin's theory,
what does it show? It shows in the most primitive fossil strata, the Cambrian layer,
a host of perfectly created sea creatures including octopi, starfish, sea urchins
and trilobites. Below this strata the fossil record is virtually blank, with only
a few traces of plant algae in evidence. Where are the primitive ancestors of these
numerous and complex sea creatures? The fossil record, in a major blow to Darwin's
theory, offers no answers.
As we examine higher fossil layers, we find the same pattern repeated. The remains
go from invertebrates directly into fish, then to amphibians, later to reptiles and
finally to mammals. All these creatures, great and small, are perfectly formed without
a fossil record of one species somehow evolving into another. The record also shows
that many species, including insects, are the same throughout the entire geologic
column.
Gaps Rather than Transitions
Hitching states about the fossil record: "The curious thing is that there is
a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important
places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply
aren't there . . . Fish jump into the fossil record seemingly from nowhere:
mysteriously, suddenly, fully formed, and in a most un-Darwinian way. And before
them are maddening, illogical gaps where their ancestors should be" (The
Neck of the Giraffe, pp. 19-20, emphasis added).
Evolutionists have desperately tried to find at least one such species in transition
among the many millions of species discovered in the fossil record. They finally
came up with one ostensible example: archaeopteryx, claimed to be a half-species
between reptile and bird. However, further study has shown this not to be
a transitional species at all but a bird with fully formed feathers and capable of
flight.
The Darwinists' view of the fossil record is intellectual sleight of hand. They point
to the fossil record and its progression of species, citing it as proof of evolutionary
change between species. The first point is true--there is a progression--but the
second (evolutionary change) is an unfounded supposition. The fossil record shows
a progression of perfectly formed species from simpler to more complex. But the second
premise, which makes assumptions regarding how they evolved or gradually changed,
is not demonstrated in the fossil strata.
Other Theories to Explain the Evidence
To explain a fossil record that doesn't match the theory of evolution, some evolutionists
have had to come up with alternative explanations. Some, like Gould and Eldredge,
have proposed a "punctuated equilibrium" theory. They propose that evolution took
place in short spurts, with long periods of inactivity in between.
This, they say, explains the sudden appearance of new species with no earlier transitional
forms. But they have failed to show how this is biologically possible. "For all the
excitement it has generated," observes Newsweek, "punctuated equilibrium still
smacks of heresy to many scientists. It does not explain what many regard as the
crucial point: how and why a new species springs up" ("Enigmas of Evolution,î March
29, 1982, p. 39).
Those who admit the lack of transitional fossils are at a loss to explain how the
newer forms of life appear. "Orthodox Darwinism," comments Hayward, ìoffers a plausible
biological explanation for what might have happened, but is in conflict with the
evidence of geology. And the alternative theory accepts the geological record, but
cannot explain how species could arise so suddenly" (Creation and Evolution, p.
19).
Avoiding any acknowledgment of God, these scientists do not take into account the
obvious conclusion the fossil record shows--that these creatures appeared as perfectly
formed organisms in a progressive manner and without previous ancestors of the same
kind. After surveying the fossil record, Hayward describes the situation bluntly:
"In other words, Darwin has been let down by the rocks . . . Evolutionists
rule out the obvious solution, of a great burst of activity by the Creator at the
start of the Cambrian period. But they have no alternative explanation. The astonishing
lack of Precambrian fossils is a major weakness in Darwinism" (pp. 42-43).
Of the fossil record of plants, botanist and evolutionist E.J. Corner of Cambridge
admits, "I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants
is in favor of special creation (creation by God)" (Evolution, Royal
Botanical Society, 1961, p. 97, emphasis added).
Rather than supporting Darwinism, the fossil record undermines the theory at every
turn.
What About Natural Selection?
What about natural selection as a supposed proof of Darwin's theory? How has
this second major pillar of evolutionary theory fared? In truth, it has been quietly
discarded by an increasing number of theorists among the scientific community.
Charles Darwin's idea that the survival of the fittest would explain how species
evolved has been relegated to a redundant, self-evident statement. Geneticist C.H.
Waddington defines the fundamental problem of advocating natural selection as a proof
of Darwinism: "Natural selection . . . turns out on closer inspection to
be a tautology, a statement of an inevitable although previously unrecognized relation.
It states that the fittest individuals in a population will leave more offspring"
(Bethell, p. 310).
In other words, what are the fittest? Why, those that survive, of course. And what
survives? Why, naturally, the fittest. The problem is that this observation is circular
reasoning and is not an independent criterion to evaluate results.
Darwin cited an example of the way natural selection was supposed to work: A wolf
that had inherited the ability to run especially fast was better equipped to survive.
His advantage in outrunning others in the pack when food was scarce meant he could
eat better and thus survive longer.
Yet, the very changes that enabled that wolf to run faster could easily become a
hindrance if other modifications of the body did not accompany the increased speed.
For example, the additional exertion required to run faster would naturally place
an added strain on the animal's heart, and eventually it could drop from a heart
attack. The survival of the fittest would require that any biological or anatomical
alterations would have to be in harmony and synchronized with other bodily modifications,
or the changes would be of no benefit.
Natural Selection Doesn't Change Species
Natural selection, scientists have found, deals only with the number of
species, not the change of the species. It has to do with the survival
and not the arrival of the species. "Natural selection," said Conrad Waddington
of Edinburgh University, "is that some things leave more offspring than others; and
you ask, which leave more offspring than others? And it is those that leave more
offspring; and there is nothing more to it than that. The whole guts of evolution--which
is, how do you come to have horses and tigers and things--is outside the mathematical
theory (of neo-Darwinism)" (Wistar Symposium, Moorehead and Kaplan, 1967, p. 14).
Tom Bethell gets to the heart of the problem with natural selection as the foundation
of evolution: "This was no good at all. As T. H. Morgan (1933 Nobel Prize winner
in medicine for his experiments with the Drosophila fruit fly) had remarked,
with great clarity: 'Selection, then, has not produced anything new, but only
more of certain kinds of individual. Evolution, however, means producing
new things, not more of what already exists.' "
Bethell concludes: "Darwin's theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse. In his
famous book, Origin of Species, Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious
to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such.
I have not been surprised to read . . . that in some of the latest evolutionary
theories 'natural selection plays no role at all.' Darwin, I suggest, is in the
process of being discarded . . . But perhaps in deference to the venerable
old gentleman . . . it is being done as discreetly and gently as possible,
with a minimum of publicity" (Tom Bethell, "Darwin's Mistake,î The Craft of Prose,
pp. 311, 314, emphasis added).
Sadly, the critical examination of natural selection has been undertaken so discreetly
that most people are unaware of it, so the inexcusable deception that began nearly
140 years ago continues.
A Look at Random Mutation
If natural selection is not the answer, what about the third supposed proof: the
reliance evolutionists place on random mutation as a cornerstone of evolution?
Curiously enough, Darwin himself was one of the first to discount beneficial effects
from rare changes he noted in the species, to the point that he did not include them
in his theory. "He did not consider them important," says Maurice Caullery in his
book Genetics and Heredity, "because they nearly always represented an obvious disadvantage
from the point of view of the struggle for existence; consequently they would most
likely be rapidly eliminated in the wild state by the operation of natural selection"
(1964, p. 10, emphasis added).
Yet in Darwin's lifetime the principles of genetics were not clearly understood.
By the beginning of the 20th century these laws were finally decoded, first by Gregor
Mendel, then by Hugo De Vries. Evolutionists quickly seized on these discoveries
to support evolution. Sir Julian Huxley, one of the principal spokesmen for evolutionary
theory in this century, commented on the unpredictability of mutations: "Mutation
. . . provides the raw material of evolution; it is a random affair and
takes place in all directions" (Evolution in Action, 1953, p. 38).
So, "shortly after the turn of the century, Darwin's theory suddenly seemed plausible
again," writes Hitching. It was found that once in a while, absolutely at random
(about once in ten million times during cell division, we now know) the genes make
a copying mistake. These mistakes are known as mutations, and are mostly harmful.
They lead to a weakened plant, or a sick or deformed creature. They do not persist
within the species, because they are eliminated by natural selection . . .
"However, followers of Darwin have come to believe that it is the occasional beneficial
mutation, rarely though it happens, which is what counts in evolution. They say these
favorable mutations, together with sexual mixing, are sufficient to explain how the
whole bewildering variety of life on Earth today originated from a common genetic
source" (Hitching, p. 49, emphasis added).
Mutations: Liability, not Benefit
What has almost a century of research discovered? That mutations are pathological
mistakes and not helpful changes in the genetic code. C.P. Martin of McGill University
in Montreal wrote, "Mutation is a pathological process which has had little or nothing
to do with evolution" ("A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,î American Scientist,
January 1953, p. 100). Professor Martin's investigations revealed mutations are overwhelmingly
negative and never creative. He observed that an apparently beneficial mutation was
likely only a correction of a previously deleterious one, similar to punching a man
with a dislocated shoulder and inadvertently putting it back into place.
We can be thankful that mutations are extremely rare. An average of one mistake per
10 million correct copies occurs in the genetic code. Whoever or whatever types 10
million letters with only one mistake would easily be the world's best typist and
probably would not be human. Yet this is the astounding accuracy of our supposedly
blind genetic code when it replicates itself.
If, however, these copying errors were to accumulate, a species, instead of improving,
would eventually degenerate and perish. But geneticists have discovered a self-correcting
system.
"The genetic code in each living thing has its own built-in limitations," says Hitching.
"It seems designed to stop a plant or creature stepping too far away from the average
. . . Every series of breeding experiments that has ever taken place has
established a finite limit to breeding possibilities. Genes are a strong influence
for conservatism, and allow only modest change. Left to their own devices, artificially
bred species usually die out (because they are sterile or less robust) or quickly
revert to the norm (Hitching, pp. 54-55).
We see these genetic limits at work in the world around us. Although genetic diversity
has allowed us to enjoy the companionship of hundreds of breeds of dogs of all shapes,
sizes, colors and other traits, they are still dogs. Specialized breeding to create
varieties of dogs that increasingly deviate from the norm often leads to weakened
animals with inherited problems that will ultimately lessen their odds for long-term
survival.
Many scientists reluctantly concede that mutations do not explain Darwin's proposed
transition from one species to the next. Writing about eminent zoologist Pierre-Paul
Grassé, Hayward says, "In 1973 he published a major book on evolution . . .
First and foremost, the book aims to expose Darwinism as a theory that does not work,
because it clashes with so many experimental findings.
"As Grassé says in his introduction: 'Today our duty is to destroy the myth
of evolution . . . Some people, owning to their sectarianism, purposely
overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their
beliefs' . . .
"Take mutation first. Grassé has studied this extensively, both inside his
laboratory and in nature. In all sorts of living things, from bacteria to plants
and animals, he has observed that mutations do not take succeeding generations further
and further from their starting point. Instead, the changes are like the flight of
a butterfly in a green house, which travels for miles without moving more that a
few feet from its starting point. There are invisible but firmly fixed boundaries
that mutations can never cross . . . He insists that mutations are only
trivial changes; they are merely the result of slightly altered genes, whereas 'creative
evolution . . . demands the genesis of new ones' "(Hayward, p. 25).
Embarrassingly for evolutionists, mutation is also not the answer. If anything, the
self-correcting system to eliminate mutations shows that a great intelligence was
at work when the overall genetic system was designed so that random mutations would
not destroy the beneficial genes. Ironically, mutation shows the opposite of what
evolutionism teaches: In real life random mutation is the villain and not the hero.
This takes us to one last point on mutations: the inability of evolution to explain
the appearance of simple life and intricate organs.
The Wondrous Cell
Cells are marvelous and incredibly complicated living things. They are self-sufficient
and function like miniature chemical factories. The closer we look at cells, the
more we realize just how incredibly complex they are.
For example, the cell wall is a wonder in itself. If it were too porous, harmful
solutions would enter and cause the cell to burst. On the other hand, if the wall
were too impervious, no nourishment could come in or waste products go out, and the
cell would quickly die.
Biochemist Michael Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University,
summarizes one of the fundamental flaws of evolution as an explanation for any form
of life. "Darwin's theory encounters its greatest difficulties when it comes to explaining
the development of the cell. Many cellular systems are what I term 'irreducibly complex.'
That means the system needs several components before it can work properly.
"An everyday example of irreducible complexity is a mousetrap, built of several pieces
(platform, hammer, spring and so on). Such a system probably cannot be put together
in a Darwinian manner, gradually improving its function. You can't catch a mouse
with just the platform and then catch a few more by adding the spring. All the pieces
have to be in place before you catch any mice."
What Behe is saying is that a cell missing a tenth of its parts doesn't function
only one tenth less as well as a complete cell; it doesn't function at all. He concludes:
"The bottom line is that the cell--the very basis of life--is staggeringly complex.
But doesn't science already have answers, or partial answers, for how these systems
originated? No" ("Darwin Under the Microscope,î The New York Times, Oct. 29, 1996,
p. A25).
Sir James Gray, a Cambridge professor of zoology, stated: "Bacteria (are) far more
complex than any inanimate system known to man. There is not a laboratory in the
world which can compete with the biochemical activity of the smallest living organism"
(Marshall and Sandra Hall, The Truth: God or Evolution?, 1974, p. 89).
Just how complex are the tiniest living things? Even the simplest cells must possess
a staggering amount of genetic information to function. For instance, the bacterium
R. coli is one of the tiniest unicellular creatures in nature. Scientists calculate
it has some 2,000 genes, each with around 1,000 enzymes. An enzyme is made up of
some one billion nucleotides, which amount to a letter in the chemical alphabet,
comparable to a byte in computer language. These enzymes instruct the organism how
to function and reproduce. The DNA information in just this single tiny cell is "the
approximate equivalent of 100 million pages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica" (John
Whitcomb, The Early Earth, 1972, p. 79).
What are the odds that the enzymes needed to produce the simplest living creature--with
each enzyme performing a specific chemical function--could come together by chance?
Mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds at one chance in
1040,000 (that is, 10 to the 40,000th power: mathematical shorthand for a 10 followed
by 40,000 zeros--a number long enough to fill about seven pages of this magazine).
Note that a probability of less than 1 in 1050 is considered by mathematicians to
be a complete impossibility (Hayward, p. 35-37).
By comparison, Sir Arthur Eddington, another mathematician, estimates there are no
more than 1080 atoms in the universe! (Hitching, p. 70). It is clear evolutionists
simply don't have a real answer to how the first cells were formed. This is just
one of their many problems in trying to explain a wondrous creation that they think
came together by random chance.
Blood Clotting
One relatively simple process necessary for animal life is the ability for blood
to clot to seal a wound and prevent an injured animal (or human) from bleeding to
death. Yet the only way this intricate system works is when many complicated chemical
substances interact. If only one ingredient is missing or doesn't function in the
right way, the process fails, and death results.
How can these complex substances appear at just the right time in the right proportions
and mix properly to clot blood and prevent death? Either they function flawlessly
or clotting doesn't work at all.
At the same time, medical science is aware of clotting at the wrong time. Blood clots
that cut off the flow of oxygen to the brain are a leading cause of strokes and often
result in paralysis or death. With blood clotting, either everything works perfectly
or the likely outcome is death.
For evolution to have led to this astounding ability, multiple mutations of just
the right kind had to converge simultaneously or the mutations would be useless.
Evolutionists can offer no realistic explanation how this is possible.
The apostle Paul's comments about the philosophers of his day could also be said
about Darwinists of our time:
"For all that can be known of God lies plain before their eyes; indeed God himself
has disclosed it to them. Ever since the world began his invisible attributes, that
is to say his everlasting power and deity, have been visible to the eye of reason,
in the things he has made. Their conduct, therefore, is indefensible; knowing God,
they have refused to honour him as God, or to render his thanks. Hence all their
thinking has ended in futility, and their misguided minds are plunged in darkness.
They boast of their wisdom, but they have made fools of themselves, exchanging the
glory of the immortal God for an image shaped like mortal man, even for images like
birds, beasts, and reptiles.
"For this reason God has given them up to their own vile desires, and the consequent
degradation of their bodies. They have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and
have offered reverence and worship to created things instead of to the Creator . . ."
(Romans 1:19-25, Revised English Bible, emphasis added).
Rampant unbelief and immorality have a great deal to do with denying and refusing
to obey a Creator God. The third supposed proof supporting evolution also fails.
A Search for Alternatives to Creation
"It is obvious that Darwin's theory no longer has the standing it had a few years
ago," adds Dr. Hayward. "A small but significant minority of biologists have rejected
it entirely, and are looking for a better theory to put in its place. So far, though,
they have failed to find one . . . On the other hand, the case for the
existence of the Creator is stronger today that it has ever been. In every branch
of science there is a growing body of evidence that the universe and its contents
have been designed--that things just could not be the way they are as the result
of chance.
"This evidence has so much weight that even some eminent scientists who are unbelievers
have had the courage to face it . . . The most reasonable answer to the
question: Creation? is surely: Yes--creation of some sort" (Hayward, p. 65, emphasis
added).
Not surprisingly, conclusions such as these have not received much publicity. Most
people are unaware of Darwinism's many flaws and scientific findings and conclusions
that undermine evolutionary theory.
Social Darwinism
The consequences of accepting Darwinist theory have been profound. Enormous moral
and social damage has been done in classrooms and to society. The theory that led
Darwin to discard the Bible and reject the existence of God has had a similar effect
on millions of other people.
It is no coincidence that Karl Marx, the father of communism, asked Darwin if he
could dedicate Das Kapital, his landmark book on communism, to his honor, or if he
could write its introduction. After all, Marx believed Darwin had provided the scientific
basis for communism. Darwin discreetly declined the offer.
Later, Adolf Hitler applied the Darwinist concept of the "survival of the fittest"
to the human race and during World War II began systematically exterminating people
whom he considered to be inferior. The Nazis justified their atrocities by explaining
that they were actually doing mankind a service with "genetic cleansing" to improve
the races.
As long as evolution--with its implications of amorality and the survival of the
fittest mentality among "superior" and ìinferiorî races--is still accepted and believed,
genocide, as the recent ethnic cleansings in Bosnia and Rwanda show, will have a
scientific justification, even though most believers in Darwinist theory would object
to this conclusion.
The Bible prophesies that, before Jesus Christ's return, a worldwide commerce of
human beings will be in place. This Babylonian system will include the trading of
"bodies and souls of men" (Revelation 18:13). Could this be possible? One only has
to remember the Nazi holocaust. Hundreds of thousands were pressed into slave labor.
Those too weak, ill, young or old to work faced a merciless death.
Remember, such events happened barely 50 years ago in what were considered to be
the most advanced and enlightened nations. Clearly it could happen again, especially
in a world in which so many have adopted a belief in moral relativism and a survival-of-the-fittest
outlook.
But, if the theory of evolution does not provide the answers to the existence of
the abundance and variety of life, can the Bible explain the fossil record, an ancient
earth and a divine creation at the same time? Our next article will deal with this
intriguing question.
Sidebar: The Miracle of the Human Eye
Charles Darwin described the eye as one of the greatest challenges to his theory.
How could he explain it? The eye, after all, is simply incompatible with evolution.
"To suppose," he admitted, ìthat the eye with all its inimitable contrivances . . .
could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the
highest degree" (On the Origin of Species, 1909, p. 190).
Jesus Christ said that "the eye is the lamp of the body" (Matthew 6:22). Jacob Bronowski
wrote that, "if you compare a human being with even the most sharp-eyed of the great
apes, say with a chimpanzee, our vision is incredibly more delicate . . .
Their ability to discriminate fine detail (which can be tested in a very simple way)
is not comparable with that of human beings" (The Origins of Knowledge and Imagination,
1978, pp. 12-13).
The human eye possesses 130 million light-sensitive rods and cones that convert light
into chemical impulses. These signals travel at a rate of a billion per second to
the brain.
The essential problem for Darwinists is how so many intricate components could have
independently evolved to work together perfectly when, if a single component didn't
function perfectly, nothing would work at all.
"Now it is quite evident," says scientist Francis Hitching, ìthat if the slightest
thing goes wrong en route--if the cornea is fuzzy, or the pupil fails to dilate,
or the lens becomes opaque, or the focusing goes wrong--then a recognizable image
is not formed. The eye either functions as a whole, or not at all.
"So how did it come to evolve by slow, steady, infinitesimally small Darwinian improvements?
Is it really possible that thousands upon thousands of lucky chance mutations happened
coincidentally so that the lens and the retina, which cannot work without each other,
evolved in synchrony? What survival value can there be in an eye that doesn't see?
"Small wonder that it troubled Darwin. 'To this day the eye makes me shudder,' (Darwin)
wrote to his botanist friend Asa Gray in February, 1860" (The Neck of the Giraffe,
1982, p. 86).
Charles Darwin should have considered two passages in the Bible. "The hearing ear
and the seeing eye, the Lord has made them both," wrote King Solomon (Proverbs 20:12).
Psalm 94:9 asks: "He who planted the ear, shall he not hear? He who formed the eye,
shall he not see?"
The same can be said of the brain, nose, palate and dozens of other complex and highly
developed organs in any human or animal. It would take a quantum leap of faith to
think all this just evolved. Yet that is commonly taught and accepted.
After reviewing the improbability of such organs arising in nature from an evolutionary
process, Professor H.S. Lipson, a member of the British Institute of Physics, wrote
in 1980: "We must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable alternative
is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but
we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports
it" (Physics Bulletin, Vol. 30, p. 140).
--Mario Seiglie
©1999 United Church of God, an International Association
Related Information:
Table of Contents that includes "Evolution: Fact or Fiction?"
Other Articles by Mario Seiglie
Origin of article "Evolution: Fact or Fiction?"
Keywords: evolution Darwin evolution, theory of
Evolution and biochemistry: