Is Evolution True?

Evolution has come to mean the theory of common ancestry. It is the belief that all living things evolved by natural processes from earlier and more simple forms of life. In regards to evolution, the evidence is simply insufficient; much of what Charles Darwin taught has been rejected and surpassed.

Darwin arrived at his theory of natural selection through studying the effects of selection as practiced by man in the breeding of domesticated animals and cultivated plants. However, the intelligent action of man in selective breeding is not analogous to the action of “natural selection,” but almost its direct opposite. Causality comes in two basic varieties: natural and intelligent. Man has an aim or an end in view; “natural selection” can have none. Man chooses what to cross and protects them and guards them until the end goal is achieved. Nothing of this kind happens, or can happen, through the blind process of different elimination and differential survival which we miscall “natural selection.”

The only real evidence for or against evolution is in the fossil record. Every other argument for evolution is based on what could have been. Mere speculation. Even Darwin himself recognized this as a problem when he wrote, “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.”

So, what does the fossil record suggest? Transitional fossils should exist; however, those transitional fossils have not been unearthed. The fossil record includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism. Stasis: Most species appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is limited and directionless. Sudden appearance: In any area, a species does not arise gradually. It appears all at once and fully formed.

Since 1859 when Darwin wrote, millions of fossils have been unearthed; however, the “missing links” needed to confirm his theory have not been found. In fact, some species thought to be transitional have been found not to be transitional after all, so that the record is actually more bleak today than in Darwin’s time! In fact, the very concept of “missing links” begs the question in favor of evolution; therefore, we shouldn’t even use that term. The chain doesn’t even exist; therefore, the links do not exist and thus cannot be missing.

Macroevolutionary changes demand large-scale changes from one type of organism to another. Evolutionists argue that this occurred gradually over a long period of time. One serious objection to this view is that all functional changes from one system to another must be simultaneous. For example, one can make small changes in a car gradually over a period of time without changing its basic type. One can change the shape of the fenders, its color, and its trim gradually. But if a change is in the size of the piston, this will involve simultaneous changes in the cam shaft, block, and cooling system. Otherwise the new engine will not function. Likewise, changing from a fish to a reptile or a reptile to a bird calls for major changes throughout the system of the animal. All these changes must occur simultaneously or blood oxygenation will not go with lung development and will not match nasal passage and throat changes, autonomic breathing reflexes in the brain, thoracic musculature, and membranes. Gradual evolution cannot account for this. And in examination, it is what is “under the hood” that counts. And the gap between a primate and a human brain is immense. And this gap does not refer merely to the size of the brain but to its complexity and ability to create art, human language, and highly complex mechanisms.

Further, some of the bones once widely touted as transitional species are now known not to have been – even by evolutionists. Piltdown Man, a basic form in science texts and museums for years, turned out to be a fraud. The bent posture of Piltdown has been traced to a bone deformity resulting from a vitamin deficiency cave-dwellers experience from lack of sunlight. Also, Nebraska Man was a reconstruction from one tooth, which turned out to be that of an extinct pig. Yet Nebraska Man was used as evidence in the Scopes Trial (1925) to support teaching evolution in public schools. And let’s not forget about Peking Man and how the fossil evidence vanished after its validity was questioned. Not one primate fossil find to date that has been subjected to objective scientific scrutiny is a strong candidate for the human family tree.

Julian Huxley, an arch-defender of evolution, estimated that at the known rate of helpful mutations over the known time scale, the odds against evolution happening by pure chance are one followed by three million zeros (1,500 pages of zeros) to one.

Former atheist Fred Hoyle reasoned that the chances for life arising without an intelligent cause were one in ten to the forty-thousandth power, which he described as not “insensibly different from zero.”

In 1860, Agassiz wrote, “[Darwin] has lost sight of the most striking of the features, and the one which pervades the whole, namely, that there runs throughout Nature unmistakable evidence of thought, corresponding to the mental operations of our own mind, and therefore intelligible to us as thinking beings, and unaccountable on any other basis than that they own their existence to the working of intelligence; and no theory that overlooks this element can be true to nature.”

Conclusion:

There are two views of the origins of new life-forms. One says that everything came about by natural causes; the other looks to a supernatural (intelligent) cause. The overwhelming evidence is in favor of the latter. At best, evolution can only describe small adaptation over time. Darwinism fails to showcase large-scale evolutionary change. Further, evolution fails at explaining the origin of life. 

12 thoughts on “Is Evolution True?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s