Evolution is a theory, not a fact. This is an extremely important distinction. In science, ultimately almost all “knowledge” remains within the realm of theory rather than fact. Even something as well-established as the theory of gravity, with its precise formula, cannot be said to have been proven in an ultimate sense, as we may one day find circumstances in either the micro or macro worlds (such as the sub-atomic quantum realm) where gravity behaves very differently. The formula for gravity may one day need to be amended to incorporate further variables. Thus, while we may colloquially describe gravity as a “fact”, its precise nature and operation remain theoretical. Ultimately, all scientific theories remain permanently subject to either verification, amendment or disproof, through the examination of ongoing evidence.
Furthermore, not all scientific theories are worthy of the same degree of respect and credibility. While some theories, such as the law of gravity, are substantiated by clear, observable, repeatable, measurable data, other theories are highly speculative and uncorroborated. The current variety of imaginative theories attempting to explain the origin of the universe are examples of the latter kind of theory. Bubble universes (1), mother-baby universes (2), the multiverse (3), oscillating or cyclical universes (4), and even the creation of our universe by aliens (5) are all highly speculative theories that have been recently proposed by scientists to answer the question of ultimate origin. These theories offer contradictory, often mutually exclusive explanations for the origin of the universe. They are based upon little or no hard evidence, arising primarily from the imaginations of the scientists concerned, and certainly do not warrant the same degree of credibility as does the theory of gravity. Thus, the credibility of scientific theories varies enormously, from highly speculative to largely substantiated, depending upon the amount of observable corroborating evidence, as well as the existence of any contrary evidence.
So, where does the theory of evolution fit into this spectrum? Is it overwhelmingly corroborated by observable evidence? Or is it speculative and largely unsubstantiated?
My book, “No More Monkey Business: Evolution in Crisis” demonstrates the highly speculative nature of the theory of evolution. It documents the ever-shrinking evidence base for the theory, including the steadily increasing body of scientific evidence that now directly contradicts its fundamental premises. Far from being a proven “fact”, evolution is a theory that is coming under increasing scrutiny and criticism from many respected, highly-credentialled scientists.
The theory of evolution, introduced by Charles Darwin in 1859, proposes that all biological life on earth originated from a single-celled organism and, from there, it developed into the complex and varied life-forms that we see today. This progression from the simple to the complex is supposed to have taken place over billions of years by means of genetic variation and natural selection. This refers to a species’ ability to make gradual cumulative changes to its basic structure, in response to environmental and other factors, which eventually results in the formation of new physical features. In this way, it is supposed that an amoeba eventually turned into a giraffe, a fish eventually turned into an elephant, and a single-celled bacteria eventually became a professor of astrophysics at Cambridge University. Ultimately, this is what the theory of evolution proposes.
If you have not previously given much thought to the theory of evolution, the chances are that you have made at least one of the following assumptions:
- The theory of evolution is an established, indisputable fact.
- Only “nutters” and religious “kooks” disagree with it.
- It really doesn’t matter whether the theory of evolution is true or not.
Over the course of this next series of posts, I hope to disavow you of all three of those assumptions.
The Theory of Evolution is Not Proven
There is a common misconception that the theory of evolution is a proven fact, substantiated by a vast body of irrefutable evidence. Ask the average person whether they think evolution is true, and they will often express surprise that you feel the need to even ask the question! The concept that all biological life on earth gradually evolved from simple to complex lifeforms over hundreds of millions of years through the chance processes of natural selection and adaptation is now an entrenched tenet of 21st century society. It is an assumed “fact”. Not only is the theory accepted unquestioningly, but anyone who dares to propose the biblical creation story as an alternate explanation for the origin of complex biological life is considered to be living in denial. He or she is regarded with the same mocking disdain as are those who still believe that the earth is flat. After all, science has “proven” evolution hasn’t it?
Despite this popular impression among the general populace, the theory of evolution is not even close to being proven at the scientific level. In fact, there is less supporting evidence for the theory now than there ever has been! As this book will demonstrate, scientific discoveries and developments within many of the major branches of science over recent decades have seriously undermined the previously accepted evidence-base for the theory. Some of the evidence that now directly contradicts the theory of evolution and which will be examined in this series of posts includes:
- The fossil record, which fails to support the concept of the gradual development of increasingly complex species.
- The vast amounts of complex genetic information (DNA) within almost every cell of every living organism, which could not possibly have been created through random evolutionary processes.
- The now widely recognised genetic impossibility of random evolutionary processes creating the huge amounts of new genetic information (DNA) necessary for the creation of new physical features.
- The now-acknowledged fact that natural selection (small variations within a species – which can be observed today throughout the animal and plant world) does not offer a viable means whereby one species can evolve into a completely different species with new physical characteristics.
- The inability of evolution to explain how the first living cells came into existence from non-living matter.
- The extraordinary complexity of the single cell, comprised of hundreds of complex processes, carried out by hundreds of microscopic, robot-like molecular “machines’, which could not possibly have been created through random evolutionary processes.
In response to these and many other recent scientific developments, a growing number of respected scientists are voicing serious concerns regarding the theory, and some are abandoning it altogether. Conscientious objectors to evolution have been growing in number and becoming more vocal for over 50 years:
In 1967, in response to the growing understanding of genetics, a scientific symposium was held at the Wistar Institute, a biomedical science research centre in Philadelphia, where the plausibility of evolution was challenged because of the now recognised impossibility of new physical features being created by random genetic adaptation. (6)
In 1973, renowned palaeontologist, Dr. Barbara J. Stahl, drew world attention to the failure of the fossil record to provide any unequivocal evidence for evolution, in her acclaimed book, “Vertebrate History; Problems in Evolution”. (7)
In November 1980, at the Natural History Museum in Chicago, a large number of the world’s leading geneticists and other scientists held a seminar to consider the issue of whether the small changes within a species, sometimes referred to as “micro-evolution”, can lead to the big changes necessary for Darwinian evolution (“macro-evolution” – one species changing into a brand-new species, with new physical features). The findings of the conference were reported in the next issue of “Science” magazine, which stated;
“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying micro-evolution can be extrapolated to explain the supposed phenomena of macro-evolution. At the risk of doing violence to the opinions of some of the scientists at the meeting, the answer was a clear ‘No’.” (8)
In other words, in 1980, a conference of the world’s leading geneticists concluded that evolution is not genetically possible!
In 1980, in response to the findings of the Chicago Conference, Dr. Ken Ham stated; “If they had known about genetics in Darwin’s day, the theory of evolution would never have gotten off the ground.” (9)
In 1986, molecular biologist, Dr. Michael Denton, in his landmark book, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”, outlined the newly emerged understanding of the irreducible complexity of the single cell; that even the simplest cell is a complex bio-factory of hundreds of interdependent molecular components, all of which need to be simultaneously existent and functional for the first cell to be alive. The theory of evolution does not have a viable explanation as to how these complex components could have sprung into existence simultaneously. (10)
In the 1990s, the huge amounts of information in DNA within cells (which we will examine in a Chapter 7) became a topic of great discussion. How could the 3.2 billion pieces of encoded information within every DNA strand in almost every cell of the human body have come into existence through natural processes? Where did this information come from? Evolution simply cannot account for this. Physicist, Dr. Lee Spetner, highlighted these serious problems in his book, “Not By Chance: Shattering The Modern Theory of Evolution”, in 1997. (11) This extremely problematic issue has had evolutionists scratching their collective heads ever since. For example, Professor Werner Gitt, of the German Institute of Physics, published a critical book in 2006, entitled, “In The Beginning Was Information”. (12) This book outlined the complete inability of random evolutionary processes to produce the vast quantity of complex information within DNA. The existence of DNA is a huge problem for the theory of evolution!
In 2002, in response to the mounting scientific evidence contradicting the theory of evolution, many of the world’s leading scientists began to call for a symposium to determine the ongoing validity of the theory of evolution. As a response, in that same year, an international organisation of scientists was formed, called CESHE (Cercle d’Etudes Scientifique et Historique), headquartered in France. It was a voluntary organisation comprised of many highly respected scientists, whose purpose was to determine whether the theory of evolution can still be considered to be a valid scientific theory. After a period of intense scrutiny and rigorous evaluation of all the evidence, this was their conclusion:
“The theory of evolution is not supported by science. Many scientists have accepted the theory because they assume it to be an established scientific fact. Those scientists who have investigated it, however, find that evolution is a belief, not a science.” (13)
In July 2008, as the scientific integrity of the theory of evolution continued to unravel, a conference of the world’s leading evolutionary scientists was held in Altenberg, Austria. The purpose of the conference was to discuss the growing realisation that if natural selection (the slight variations within a species – which is an observable and undeniable process) cannot produce new species with completely new physical features, then Darwin’s theory is dead. The conference could not come up with a viable explanation of how natural selection could achieve this, given our current knowledge of genetics. After the conference, Dr. Jerry Fodor, of Rutgers University, is quoted as saying, “Basically I don’t think anybody knows how evolution works.” (14)
These few examples represent the tip of the iceberg regarding the growing dissatisfaction with the theory of evolution among the scientific community. Evolution is far from proven and an increasing number of respected scientists are daring to voice their disbelief, resulting in a growing body of published criticisms of the theory:
In 2001, respected Australian scientist, Dr. John Ashton, published the landmark book, “In Six Days; Why Fifty Scientists Choose To Believe in Creation”. (15) His book contains fifty chapters, each written by a different Ph.D. scientist. Each of them provides extensive scientific arguments for their view that the theory of evolution is no longer scientifically tenable, and they explain the growing scientific evidence supporting creation. The contributing scientists are highly regarded internationally, and come from a wide range of fields including biology, chemistry, biochemistry, genetics, physics, zoology, astronomy, meteorology, engineering and botany.
In 2012, Dr John Ashton published the book, “Evolution Impossible: 12 Reasons Why Evolution Cannot Explain The Origin of Life on Earth”. The book provides a comprehensive discussion of the profound scientific flaws that have become apparent in the theory of evolution in recent years.
In 2014, respected geneticist, Dr. Casey Luskin, contributed a chapter to the book, “More Than Myth”, entitled “The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution”. (16) The chapter received world-wide attention, prompting many other scientists to voice similar concerns.
In the area of cosmology (the study of the stars and planets), many scientists are concluding that evolutionary theory offers no explanation for the origin of the universe itself. Recent discoveries in cosmology have shown that the universe actually had a beginning; that at some point in the past it simply came into existence. How could the entire physical universe spring into existence from nothing? There is no known natural cause which could account for this. Only something outside of nature, something supernatural, could have caused this. Commenting on the growing number of scientists who now concede that the universe must have a supernatural cause, astrophysicist, Dr Hugh Ross, Director of Observations at Royal Astronomical Society, Vancouver, states;
“Astronomers who do not draw theistic or deistic conclusions are becoming rare, and even the few dissenters hint that the tide is against them. Geoffrey Burbidge, of the University of California at San Diego, complains that his fellow astronomers are rushing off to join ‘the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang.’”(17)
In his book, “God, Science and Evolution”, Prof. E.H. Andrews wrote;
“Speaking as a scientist, I believe that in another 20 years the theory of evolution will have been totally discredited, purely on scientific grounds. The enormous gaps in the theory are beginning to emerge – not, of course, in the popular versions of evolution, but in the findings of scientists who are studying these matters at depth.”(18)
In my next post I will examine some of the scientific and media bias against the creationist viewpoint which continues to permeate society.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Proposed by Paul Steinhardt and Alexander Vilenkin, in 1983. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation
2 Stephen Hawking, “Black Holes and Baby Universes”, Random House Publishers, 1994.
3 Greene, Brian (24 January 2011). “A Physicist Explains Why Parallel Universes May Exist”. npr.org(Interview). Interviewed by Terry Gross. Archived from the original on 13 September 2014. Retrieved 12 September 2014.
4 P. J. Steinhardt, N. Turok (2001). “Cosmic Evolution in a Cyclic Universe”. Physical Review D. 65 (12): 126003. arXiv:hep-th/0111098.
5 Video Clip of interview between Ben Stein and Dr. Richard Dawkins, “Richard Dawkins Believes Extraterrestrials Created Man.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiVoS78lNqM
6 P.S. Moorhead & M.M. Kaplan, “Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution”, The Wistar Institute Symposium Monograph No.5, Philadelphia, P.A., Wistar Institute Press, 1967).
7 Barbara J. Stahl, “Vertebrate History; Problems in Evolution”, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1973.
8 Roger Lewin, “Science” Journal, Vol. 210(4472), 1980, pp.883-887
9 Ken Ham, “The Evolution Tapes”, 1980
10 Michael Denton, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”, Bethesda, Adler & Adler, 1986.
11 Lee M. Spetner, “Not By Chance: Shattering The Modern Theory of Evolution”, New York, Judaica Press, 1997.
[1]2 Werner Gitt, “In The Beginning Was Information”, Green Forest, A.R., Master Books, 2006.
13 Cercle D’études Scientifique et Historique, https://ceshe.fr/revue-sf-1.html#p=3, also quoted in “Evolution; Fact or Belief?”, Creation Science Foundation.
14 Susan Mazur, The Altenberg 16: “An Expose of the Evolutionary Industry”, Berkeley, CA, North Atlantic Books, 2010.
15 John F. Ashton, “In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose To Believe in Creation”, Green forest, AR, Masterbooks, 2001.
16 Casey Luskin’s chapter, “The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution” in the book, “More than Myth” (Chartwell Press, 2014).
[1]7 Hugh Ross, “The Creator and The Cosmos”, Navpress, 2001, pp.108-112
[1]8 E.H. Andrews, “God, Science and Evolution”. Creation Life Publishing, 1981, p.90