At the outset of this section we need to differentiate between the two categories of evolution, i.e. microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution cannot be disputed as there is ample scientific evidence that validates this concept. So what is microevolution? It is a scientific term that is used to explain how organisms are able to self adjust to changes in their environmental surroundings. And so we see that when God created each species, He pre-programmed their DNA to be able to make adjustments in their physiology in order to cope with any consistent change to their environment. A simple example would be that of a person relocating from a warm climate to a colder climate. When that person arrives in their new environment they find that they have to wear jerseys while the local residents walk around in short sleeve shirts. The reason for that is because their bodies have not yet acclimatized to the colder environment. Over time however, their bodies slowly start to adjust and eventually they too can walk around in short sleeve shirts. And so microevolution is just that, i.e. it is very small changes that are made in physiology of the organism. The reason for that is because God has placed an inbuilt limit to the changes that the organism can make.
This brings us to the second category of evolution called macroevolution, which is a theory that one species can ultimately evolve into another species that never existed before. Natural scientists observe the process of microevolution and then foolishly try to extrapolate that concept to accommodate their theory of macroevolution. Their reasoning is that if an organism can change over time to acclimatise to a changed environment, then surely over an extended period of time that same organism can evolve into another species entirely. And so this brings us to the second false creation narrative that we will discuss, which is the theory of evolution. This theory is embraced by most unbelievers in the earth today, although there are a growing number of scientists (non Christian) that because of the glaring inadequacies of this theory are beginning to question its validity. And so, because mankind found clear evidence of past species that existed on the earth, they had to come up with a theory that could explain it. Bearing in mind that natural thinking scientists cannot accept an explanation that attributes that which they observe to the work of a divine creator, they therefore had to come up with an alternative explanation. That eventually led scientists to develop a theory called “evolution by natural selection”. Bearing in mind that this is a theory and a theory is just that, i.e. it is not fact. In essence, the theory states that there is a process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioural traits. This theory was first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859. And so, Darwinism (as the theory of evolution is commonly known) maintains that all living things are descendants of a common ancestor that have been modified by unguided natural processes over hundreds of millions of years. One of the best examples that scientists use to try prove this theory is by trying to show how a racoon like animal that existed 50 million years ago, called a Indohyus Raoellidae[1], underwent several transitional forms that finally evolved into the modern humpback whale that we see in the earth today. The theory is that random chance produced each successful mutation in the animal, as it followed a path that transitioned it from being a “raccoon” to becoming a “humpback whale”. The scripture “professing to be wise they became fools” comes to mind, when one examines this particular diagram of their theory of evolution[2]. This theory, because it denies the creator, is enthusiastically embraced by unbelievers, and because they make up the vast majority of the earth’s population, this theory is now taught as fact in schools and universities across the globe. Accordingly, much of the controversy between Darwinism and creationism has focused on geological chronology and whether the Bible is a reliable account of biological origins. There are many scientific arguments that completely refute Darwinism, three of which I will mention here.
The first argument is that evolution is both a mathematical and logical impossibility. Many world renown mathematicians (most non Christian) have done the calculations and all come to the same conclusion, i.e. evolution by mutation and natural selection is both mathematically and logically, indefensible. I will summarise just one of the very many scientific articles written, that address this point. Scientists have taken the example of a very simple organism composed of only 200 molecular parts (it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular parts), and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense. Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. They assumed that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half (although one in a thousand is more likely). Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful i.e. the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time (they used 10 billion years as a base for their calculation), is less than one chance out of a billion trillion.[3] And so, there is no credible science that is able to refute this and other similar mathematical arguments, which clearly disprove the theory of evolution.
The second scientific argument against the theory of evolution is in the lack of fossil records, for the problem with successful random chance mutations is that for every single successful mutation, there should be vast numbers of unsuccessful mutations discarded through “natural selection”. The fossil records found however, only reveal fully formed species, and you will recall that in the timeline of the earth’s history, that after every extinction event a whole series of new species appeared on the earth, seemingly without any explanation. So where are the missing billions of fossils of unsuccessful mutations of the various species in question, which are necessary to support the theory of successful random mutations proposed by Darwinism? They have not been discovered because the theory is flawed, and they simply do not exist. The fossil record has long been recognized as a problem for evolutionary theory. In the Origin of Species, Darwin explained that his theory led him to believe that “[t]he number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous.” However, he understood that the fossil record did not document these “intermediate” forms of life, asking, “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?” Darwin’s answer showed the tenuous nature of the evidence backing his ideas: “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.” [4] And so, even Darwin recognized that the lack of fossil records to support his theory brought its validity into question.
Michael E.B. Maher
[1] Wikipedia
[2] Understanding Evolution, The evolution of whales
[3] The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution. Henry M. Morris, PH.D. 2003
[4] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859)
Kommentarer