EVOLUTIONISTS DEBUNK EVOLUTION

Picture Showing Fish Evolving

adapted from an article by

John V. Collyer

Used with the kind permission of the Creation Science Movement, 50 Brecon Avenue, Cosham, Portsmouth, England, P06 2AW.

It is commonly thought that all scientists accept the theory of evolution and that the theory, in a broad sense, was well-settled long ago. But this is far from the truth. A brief look at what scientists are saying about the subject is enough to destroy the misconception. For example, in the New Scientist (September 12, 1985, p.59) we read: “These are confusing times for those who take an interest in Darwinism. Observers are still faced with a bewildering variety of scientific opinions, some Darwinian, some more or less Darwinian, and some quite unDarwinian in character.” This was written in a review of What Darwin Began, a book intended to guide readers “through the evolutionary jungle.”

The theory of evolution has never been short of critics. Some of the most severe criticism has come from evolutionists themselves.

[T]here is not one agreed upon scientific theory of evolution; instead, there are many conflicting ones.

Contrary to popular belief, there is not one agreed upon scientific theory of evolution; instead, there are many conflicting ones. This writer has a list of over fifty conflicting theories of evolution.

The proponents of each new theoretical mechanism for evolution painstakingly point out the errors of previous theories. This pattern was established early on with Darwin himself pointing out the errors in St. George Mivart's The Genesis of Species (1871). In turn, Mivart poured scorn on Darwin's “puerile hypothesis.” Darwin also slammed the idea advanced by Lamarck that characteristics were aquired by successive generations inheriting the beneficial biological effects of their ancestors having strained against physical limitations.

In The Origin of Species, Darwin devoted a whole chapter to the challenges he believed could be levelled against his own version of evolution. This is hardly surprising, since his book has over 800 quite unscientific speculations. Countless times he uses words and phrases such as , “perhaps...,” and “we suppose...,” and “if we may assume...,” and “it may have been...” These are not the words to use in describing scientifically established facts. Darwin observed: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” He wrote this even though he was aware of the fossil record did not support his theory. Darwin dismissed the problem as having resulted from the “imperfection of the geological record.”

Scientists Opposed to Darwin

When Origin was first published, Darwin was very disappointed to find his work being criticized as a mass of speculation. It was pointed out that the theory was not substantiated by the evidence he offered. His scientific critics claimed that he had deserted the path of inductive science to indulge himself in a wild hypothesis, outside the realm of science. The noted astronomer, Sir J.F.W. Herschel, called Darwin's theory of natural selection “a law of higgeldy-piggeldy,” expressing his contempt for a theory that relied on a whole series of haphazard accidents for biological progress to occur. It was pointed out then, and many times since, that the concept of natural selection - or “survival of the fittest,” as it later became known -was an empty tautology. Which species survive? Well, the fittest. And which are the fittest? Why, those which survive, of course!

The evolutionists J.B.S. Haldane and Julian Huxley announced in 1932 that “Darwin is dead,” referring to his theory, of course. They then offered an alternative theory based on the newly acquired knowledge of genetics. Their theory was revised a few years later in their book, Evolution, the Modern Synthesis. Then, a flood of new theories poured forth at the rate of about one a year, each publication pointing out the errors of previous theories. But the concept of evolution underlying each new theory could not be abandoned in favour of creation, since that would have had religious implications.

Unscientific Science

Evolutionary theories generally rely on the idea of many small changes taking place in a long succession of organisms, over a vast amount of time, to account for the progress of evolution. But in 1940, Richard Goldschmidt proposed Epigenetic Evolution, whereby he suggested that evolution had taken place in a series of great strides: a dinosaur's egg may have hatched a primitive bird, or an ape may have given birth to a proto-human. This theory came to be known as the Hopeful Monster theory. Many found such an unscientific idea amusing and quite fanciful; for starters, where would such a radically new kind of life-form find a mate?

Just how unscientific scientists can get was illustrated by the amazing statement of C. Ponnamperuma (“ Chemical Studies in the Original of Life,” Space Life Science I, 1968, p.64). He wrote: “Spontaneous generation of living organism is impossible, yet here we are, as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation” (emphasis added). If he could conceive of this miracle, why could he not accept creation?

The Shifting Theory

A Scientific American review of W.B. Provine's “modern synthesis” (“The Evolution of Darwinism,” Scientific American, July, 1985, p.54) observed: “The new molecular biology, by showing that the evolution process at the level of DNA is far more complex than had been thought, casts doubts on some old certainties.”

In similar vein, the American evolutionist, Niles Eldredge, wrote: “The alert reader of science magazines can hardly fail to be aware of a widespread lay rumour of something rotten in the state of Darwinism” (Nature, August 22, 1985, p.683). But this was only to prepare the reader for the introduction of yet another theory, Punctuated Equilibria, which turned out to be a revised form of the Hopeful Monster theory. Its sponsors sought to overcome the problem of the “missing links” in the fossil record by theorizing about great jumps from one species to another. Darwin had foreseen this idea and rejected it as being contrary to nature, saying “Natura non saltum” (Nature does not make jumps). A year later, the same Niles Eldridge wrote in New Scientist (June 5, 1986, p.54) that he was looking for “an evolution theory more in tune with life's actual history here on earth.” It would seem that even he was not satisfied with the theory he had proffered just a year before. Later, when his associate, Stephen Gould, proposed his Evolutionary Dynamism, Eldredge was scathingly critical.

More Criticism

The fact that the theory of evolution is still found wanting in fundamental ways, causing it to be revised in a succession of new versions, indicates its proponents are far from sure of their theory. Even the strongly pro-evolution magazine, Nature, featured an article arguing that “Darwinism is inadequate as an explanation of long-term evolution” (“ The Developing Theories of Evolution,” November 2, 1984, p,386).

The fact that the theory of evolution is still found wanting in fundamental ways, causing it to be revised in a succession of new versions, indicates its proponents are far from sure of their theory.

A later article said much the same thing: “The outstanding question about evolution today remains the same as it was in Darwin's day - given descent from a common ancestor, how did the extraordinary diversity of life come about?” (July 20, 1988, p.206).

The molecular biologist Dr. Michael Denton wrote in his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett, 1985, p.358), “[T]he Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.” (Nonetheless, Dr. Denton remains an evolutionist!) A Swedish professor of zoophysiology at Umea University, Soren Lovtrup, has written in Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (Croom Helm, 1989, p.352), “[T]he Darwinian theory of natural selection, whether or not coupled with Mendelism, is false ... Hence to all intents and purposes, the theory has been falsified, so why has it not been abandoned? I think that the answer to this question is that current evolutionists follow Darwin's example, and refuse to accept falsifying evidence.”

“[T]he Darwinian theory of natural selection, whether or not coupled with Mendelism, is false.... so why has it not been abandoned?” - Lovtrup.

In the Great Evolution Mystery (1983, p.137) G. Taylor wrote: “The theory of evolution by natural selection seems either inadequate, implausible, or definitely wrong.” These were strong words coming from an evolutionist. And in the Evolution of Living Organisms (1977, p.202) another evolutionist, Pierre P. Grasse wrote: “The explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality, or else incapable of solving the major problem involved.”

When explaining at length how all previous theories of evolution could not work, Richard Dawkins wrote in The Selfish Gene, “superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent creator.” But rather than accept that which you could readily see as a solution, he opted for an “intelligent gene.” Later, he had second thoughts. He publicly identified some of his errors and published another edition of his selfish-gene book. Yet Dr. Dawkins remains an evolutionist, despite seeing the errors in theories proffered by others and even some of the problems with his own ideas.

At the Darwin Lecture to the British Association (September, 1980), Dr. John Durant of University College, Swansea, lamented: “Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origin of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of science and social progress” (New Scientist, September 11, 1980, p.765). Dr. Durant not only perceived the relationship between the theory and it's deleterious effects on science, but on the attitudes of man towards man, as well.

The Biologist's View

A number of years ago, an important letter from twenty-two working biologists at the British Museum of Natural History was published in Nature (March 12, 1981, p.82). In it they said, “we have no absolute proof of the theory of evolution.... and theory of evolution would be abandoned tomorrow if a better theory appeared.”

“We have no absolute proof of the theory of evolution ... and the theory of evolution would be abandoned tomorrow if a better theory appeared.” - British Museum of Natural History scientists.

A Nature editorial of the same date (p.78) asked: “How true is the theory of evolution? Is Darwin's theory of evolution a fact, a pack of lies, or something in between?” It was admitted that “large sections of the general public are skeptical of Darwinism,” going so far as to suggest “Darwinism may ultimately be falsified.” Coming from the editor of a magazine that was founded to promote evolution, these comments are remarkable indeed.

Conclusion

The theory of evolution has not been scientifically established, in spite of over a century of intense scientific investigation aimed at doing just that. Instead, many evolutionists find the theory to be a poorly grounded supposition. It is still undergoing radical revisions because of the serious shortcomings in the proposed mechanisms for evolution. This should surely be ample evidence that evolution theory cannot be claimed to be true science, much less that its claims should be treated as factual.

To believe that evolution has somehow taken place, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, it's foolishness. It results from a desire to deny the existence of Almighty God, and the authority of His Word. Indeed, “The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'” (Psalm 14:1).

Credits