http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=610
Darwin in Light of 150 Years of Error
If the latter part of 2009 is anything like its beginning, this year will go down in secular history as the year of Charles Darwin. The scientific establishment is rallying virtually its entire arsenal of resources to celebrate the life and writings of Charles Darwin. Scientific American’s January cover story is titled: “The Evolution of Evolution: How Darwin’s Theory Survives, Thrives, and Reshapes the World.” In his editor’s note that introduces the issue, John Rennie wrote: “Today, 200 years after his birth and 150 years after Origin of Species, Darwin’s legacy is a larger, richer, more diverse set of theories than he could have imagined” (300[1]:6). Contributing writers to NewScientistpenned an article titled “The Years of Thinking Dangerously” in which they polled scientific heavy-hitters, such as Paul Davies, Daniel Dennett, Matt Ridley, Steven Pinker, and Michael Ruse, to decide who deserves 2009’s “anniversary crown”—Charles Darwin or Galileo. The article stated: “In the end, our panel concluded (with two abstentions) that Darwin has done more to change our view of ourselves. For our rigorous peer reviews, 2009 is Darwin’s year!” (“The Years...,” 200[2687/2688]:70-71, emp. added). The official Darwin Day Web site informs viewers that 128 events are currently scheduled in 21 different countries to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin on February 12, 2009
(“Darwin Day Celebration”). The site gives a description of many of these events, and includes a countdown of the days, hours, and seconds until the big day. (Incidentally, the debate between Dan Barker and Kyle Butt on the campus of the University of South Carolina in Columbia is listed among these events; see “Darwin Day Event Listing.”) In addition, the British Museum of Natural History has organized its “Darwin” exhibit, hailed as “the biggest ever exhibition about Charles Darwin. It celebrates Darwin’s ideas and their impact for his 200th birthday in 2009” (“Darwin: Big Idea, Big Exhibition”).
(“Darwin Day Celebration”). The site gives a description of many of these events, and includes a countdown of the days, hours, and seconds until the big day. (Incidentally, the debate between Dan Barker and Kyle Butt on the campus of the University of South Carolina in Columbia is listed among these events; see “Darwin Day Event Listing.”) In addition, the British Museum of Natural History has organized its “Darwin” exhibit, hailed as “the biggest ever exhibition about Charles Darwin. It celebrates Darwin’s ideas and their impact for his 200th birthday in 2009” (“Darwin: Big Idea, Big Exhibition”).
An exhaustive list of all such activities would take hundreds of pages. Needless to say, Darwin and his theory will be in the global spotlight this year. This being the case, it is a good time to analyze Darwin and his ideas. Is it true that Darwin left a legacy worthy to be celebrated? Or is it the case that Darwin’s ideas were not only wrong, but also harmful in that they have provided the basis for racism, devaluing human life, and erroneous scientific study? In truth, when Darwin’s contribution to society is critically considered, the publishing of The Origin of Species is an event that should be marked, not as worthy of celebration, but as an event that will live in infamy. This issue ofReason & Revelation will highlight several of the most glaring deficiencies of Darwin’s theory.
DARWIN’S THEORY IS USELESS
The late Theodosius Dobzhansky remains well-known for a particularly catchy article title that he penned in the 1970s. In fact, the title of his article contains an idea that is accepted and maintained by a large portion of the modern scientific community—“Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” (1973). This idea—that without a “proper” understanding of evolution one cannot understand, much less contribute to, biological studies—has taken a firm hold of many professors and science teaching professionals. Professor Michael Dini of the Department of Biological Sciences at Texas Tech University stated: “The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution, which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, and which extends to ALL species. Someone who ignores the most important theory in biology cannot expect to properly practice in a field that is now so heavily based on biology” (n.d., emp. in orig.).
Is it true that a proper understanding of evolution is a prerequisite for any person who wishes “to properly practice” in some field of biology? The eminent evolutionist and outspoken Darwinist, Richard Dawkins, offered some interesting thoughts along these lines. In a discussion of one particular group of scientists, Dawkins stated:
They have decided, perhaps rightly, that they can do taxonomy better if they forget about evolution, and especially if they never use the concept of the ancestor in thinking about taxonomy. In the same way, a student of, say, nerve cells, might decide that he is not aided by thinking about evolution. The nerve specialist agrees that his nerve cells are the products of evolution, but he does not need to use this fact in his research. He needs to know a lot about physics and chemistry, but he believes that Darwinism is irrelevant to his day-to-day research on nerve impulses. That is a defensible position.... A physicist certainly doesn’t need Darwinism in order to do physics (1996, p. 283, emp. added).
According to Dawkins, it is very possible for a person to engage in productive cell research (an extremely important branch of biology) without using evolutionary ideas in any of his procedures. In fact, evolution could defensibly be “irrelevant to his day-to-day research.” Please notice, however, that Dawkins makes sure to include the idea that the researcher believes that the cells are the “products of evolution.”
But let us take Dawkins’ thoughts a step further. Could it be that the researcher would not have to believe that the cells are the product of evolution? Would that belief affect his “day-to-day research”? Dawkins must answer, “No.” Then, according to Dawkins’ line of thinking, a person who does not believe in evolution could be just as (or more) successful in the biological sciences than one who does believe in evolution.
It should not be surprising, then, to hear statements like the one made by Thomas Geelan. Geelan is a teacher of advanced placement biology in Buffalo, New York. His course is titled, “An Interdisciplinary Course in Evolution.” In the abstract that describes the class, the first line states: “Evolution is the central organizing theme in all biology, yet few biology courses are taught that way” (n.d., emp. added). In the introduction to the class, a similar statement is made: “Evolution is the central organizing theme in all biology, but it is ironic that most biology curricula are pitifully deficient in their treatment of it” (emp. added).
What is the primary reason for this deficiency in “most” biology courses? The answer simply is that evolution is of no practical value in day-to-day research. In fact, evolution can be considered an irrelevantidea that has no bearing on the outcome of any scientific experiment. The cell researcher does not need it. The physicist does not need it. The taxonomist not only does not need it, but it gets in his way so much that he is better off if he does not consider it. In truth, not only is evolution a false idea, it is light years away from being the central tenet of biology. It is a counterproductive, anti-knowledge theory that, at the least, is useless, and is often destructive. Dobzhansky’s title would be better worded, “Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense in Light of Evolution.”
DARWIN FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THE LIMITS OF CHANGE
Charles Darwin did not always believe in evolution. In fact, at one time he believed in God as the Creator. He wrote in his autobiography: “Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers 
(though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality” (1958, p. 85, parenthetical item in orig.). But as he grew older, he changed his view and began to think that natural forces created the world. He described his “deconversion”: “Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct” (p. 87). Sadly, one of the reasons for his change in thinking came from a misunderstanding of the Bible.
(though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality” (1958, p. 85, parenthetical item in orig.). But as he grew older, he changed his view and began to think that natural forces created the world. He described his “deconversion”: “Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct” (p. 87). Sadly, one of the reasons for his change in thinking came from a misunderstanding of the Bible.
In Darwin’s day, the Church of England misunderstood the biblical account of Creation. The book of Genesis says that animals multiply “according to their kind” (Genesis 1:21). However, the Church of England confused the biblical word “kind” with the word “species.” The Church of England taught that God had created every separate species in the world. This idea was called the “fixity of species.” The problem with this view was that it simply is not true; they had misunderstood the Bible (Garner, 2009).
Darwin’s Finches
When Charles Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands, he discovered something that greatly interested him. He found several different species of finches which were unique to the islands. The basic differences between these species was the size and shape of their beaks. Some of the 
finches had short thick beaks, used to crack open seeds, while others had long, thin beaks that could be used to catch insects or drink nectar from flowers. As he studied the birds, he came to the conclusion that the finches were very similar and must have been related. In fact, Darwin believed that the species had originally diverged from a single species of birds. He guessed that long before he had arrived on the islands, a storm must have blown this flock of birds to the Galapagos Islands. To give a very simplified version of Darwin’s hypothesis, he thought the birds with long beaks stayed together and ate insects, while the birds with short, stout beaks were able to survive in different places on the islands where they could find seeds. Eventually, due to drought, climate change, and environmental pressures, each group became its own species through the process of natural selection. Darwin also thought that if nature could change one species of finch into several different species, then it could change an amoeba into a man. Here Darwin made a major mistake in his thinking. He did not realize that small changes have limits.
finches had short thick beaks, used to crack open seeds, while others had long, thin beaks that could be used to catch insects or drink nectar from flowers. As he studied the birds, he came to the conclusion that the finches were very similar and must have been related. In fact, Darwin believed that the species had originally diverged from a single species of birds. He guessed that long before he had arrived on the islands, a storm must have blown this flock of birds to the Galapagos Islands. To give a very simplified version of Darwin’s hypothesis, he thought the birds with long beaks stayed together and ate insects, while the birds with short, stout beaks were able to survive in different places on the islands where they could find seeds. Eventually, due to drought, climate change, and environmental pressures, each group became its own species through the process of natural selection. Darwin also thought that if nature could change one species of finch into several different species, then it could change an amoeba into a man. Here Darwin made a major mistake in his thinking. He did not realize that small changes have limits.
In recent years, two researchers have become well-known for their trips to the Galapagos Islands to study Darwin’s ideas about the Galapagos finches. In the July 14 issue of Science, Peter and Rosemary Grant presented a paper titled “Evolution of Character Displacement in Darwin’s Finches.” The thesis of the article is that one particular species of finch (Geospiza fortis) “evolved” a slightly smaller beak due to the arrival of a larger-beaked finch (G. magnirostris) competing for larger seeds of the Tribulus cistoides plant during a severe drought (Grant and Grant, 2006).
Randolph Schmid, an Associated Press author who reviewed the Grants’ article, opened his summary of their findings with these words: “Finches on the Galapagos Islands that inspired Charles Darwin to develop the concept of evolution are now helping confirm it—by evolving” (2006). Notice the subtle maneuver Schmid made in his introduction: he commingled two distinct definitions of evolution into his statement, falsely equating the two. The generally accepted definition for the concept of evolution proposed by Darwin is “huge genetic changes turning one kind of animal into another,” often called Darwinism. But the “evolving” accomplished by the finches on the Galapagos Islands was simply “small changes within the same kind of organism.” Unfortunately, evolutionists often use this type of sleight-of -hand tactic.
Schmid interviewed Robert Fleischer, a scientist who works with the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, who stated that the Grants merely had documented an instance of “microevolution” (small changes within the same kind of organism). Yet, the titles of the articles by both Schmid and the Grants misleadingly imply that Darwinian evolution has been proven by the finch research—and Schmid goes so far as to assert this bold claim in his introductory paragraph.
What do the finches really prove? They prove that finches stay finches, and the only documented kind of “evolution” is that of small changes within the same kind of organism. The Grants have been studying the finches for 33 years, and this change in beak size, which amounted to about .6 millimeters in beak length and .8 millimeters in beak depth (“Study: Darwin’s...,” 2006), was “the strongest evolutionary change seen in the 33 years of the study” (Grant and Grant, 2006). Even more ironic is the fact that this “evolutionary” change to a smaller beak that allegedly helped the finches to survive might not be so helpful after all. In the same article for Science, the Grants alluded to research done in 1977 when a drought struck the same island and killed many of the finches. The Grants noted: “Most finches died that year, and mortality was heaviest among those with small beaks” (2006, emp. added). Thus, if G. fortis keeps “evolving” a smaller beak size, a major drought in the future could easily spell the bird’s demise.
Scientific observation has never produced a single shred of evidence that proves even the possibility of “huge genetic changes turning one kind of animal into another.” In fact, all the observable evidence proves that every living organism multiplies “according to its kind” exactly as stated in Genesis 1:24, small changes in beak size, body weight, or skin color notwithstanding.
The Fruit Fly
According to the prevailing theory of evolution, beneficial mutations acted upon by natural selection provide the driving force behind nature’s production of new creatures. Of course, since mechanisms that reproduce genetic information in organisms are remarkably efficient, genetic modification by mutations are extremely rare. What is more, the overwhelming majority of mutations are so detrimental to the welfare of the mutant organism, the mutant dies or becomes a victim of predation before it has the ability to pass on its genes, and thus nature eliminates the mutation from the gene pool. Allegedly, in the rarest of cases, a “good” mutation that confers an advantage on an organism slips into the gene pool. Since this “beneficial” mutation aids the organism’s survival and reproductive ability, more offspring are produced that have the mutation. Supposedly, myriad millions of these types of mutations have accrued, by which single-celled bacteria have evolved, over billions of years, into humans. When asked why we do not see this process taking place before our eyes, we are told that it simply happens too slowly, is too gradual, and cannot be tested or witnessed in a single human generation, or even in hundreds of years.
What if, however, the process could be expedited? What if we could find some way to introduce exaggerated numbers of mutations into an organism’s gene pool? Could we select the “beneficial” mutations and produce our own, humanly initiated, evolving creatures? If evolution was actually true, and we could find an organism that could be genetically manipulated satisfactorily, then we should be able to “reproduce” evolution in a lab.
Enter Drosophila melanogaster, also known as the common fruit fly. Drosophila maintains several characteristics that make it the perfect specimen for laboratory mutation experiments. First, the female fly is extremely fertile. She can potentially lay 100 eggs a day, up to 2,000 eggs in her life (Reeve and Black, 2001, p. 157). Second, Drosophila grows from an egg to an adult in 10-12 days, thus producing up to 30 generations per year (p. 157). Due to these and other ideal traits, the fruit fly has been one of, if not the, most often used organisms in genetic mutation experiments since 1901. Reeve and Black noted: “The exploitation that made Drosophila the most important organism for genetical research was its selection by the embryologist Thomas Hunt Morgan for his studies of mutation...” (p. 157).
Since the early 1900s, multiplied millions of fruit fly generations have been bred in laboratories across the globe. Scientists performing these experiments have introduced fruit flies to various levels of radiation and countless other factors designed to produce mutations. Sherwin noted that over 3,000 different mutations have been documented in the fruit fly gene pool (n.d.). These mutations have caused such physical characteristics as eyeless flies, flies with different colored eyes, flies with legs growing from their heads, extra pairs of wings, various colored bodies, wingless flies, flies with unusually large wings, flies with useless wings, flies with twisted wings, etc. The list could go on for hundreds of pages.
So extensive have fruit fly experiments been, that the massive numbers of generations produced, and the mutations created, would be the equivalent of millions of years of supposed evolutionary time. Furthermore, intelligent scientists have acted as the “selecting agent,” thus speeding up the accumulation of “beneficial” mutations. If evolution by genetic mutation and natural selection really can occur, we should discover that the fruit fly has mutated into several new kinds of animals that branch out from their “flyhood” into other types of organisms. We should see creatures that are part fly and part something else.
What do we see? Fruit flies. That is all we see. After a hundred years of experimentation, thousands of lab-induced mutations in multiplied millions of flies, and intelligent, purposeful selection acting on those mutations, the world’s most brilliant minds have not been able to produce any creatures other thanDrosophila. Concerning the fruit fly stasis, the late evolutionist Pierre Grassé stated: “The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times (as quoted in Sherwin, n.d.). Norman Macbeth highlighted the late evolutionist Richard Goldschmidt’s thoughts about the fruit fly: “After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species” (1971, p. 33). The bottom line of all experiments ever done on fruit flies is that they stay fruit flies.
The results of such experimentation “fly” in the face of evolution, but they are exactly what one would expect to find if the biblical story of Creation is true. Darwin’s finches, fruit flies, and all other living organisms in the material world have been producing after their own kind since the beginning of creation. Since Darwin refused to recognize that small changes within a kind cannot be used to extrapolate unlimited changes into many different kinds of animals, his theory cannot be maintained in the face of what true science teaches us about the biology of living organisms.
THE FOSSILS HAVE ALWAYS SAID “NO” TO DARWIN
In the May 6, 2002 edition of Newsweek, Fred Guterl wrote a brief article titled “Evolution: Birds Do It” (139[18]:11). The gist of the article centered on the aforementioned Peter and Rosemary Grant, “a married team of biologists from Princeton, [who] have worked for three decades to fill in Darwin’s blanks” (emp. added).
The major problem with Mr. Guterl’s article, and many people’s understanding of Darwinian evolution, hinges on the fact that he apparently was not aware of the true “blanks” that need to be filled in with regard to Darwin’s theory. In the opening paragraph of the article he wrote: “Charles Darwin described how the daily struggle for food and sex ultimately determines the future of a species, be it dinosaur, bird or human.He had plenty of fossil evidence to back him up, but he never actually observed natural selection taking place” (emp. added).
In sharp contrast to this statement, the tenth chapter of The Origin of Species is titled “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record.” In it, Darwin argued that, due to the process of natural selection, “so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous” (1860, p. 234). However, he went on to admit: “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be argued against this theory. The explanation lies, I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record” (p. 234).
Darwin most certainly did not have “plenty of fossil evidence to back him up.” He hoped that future geological research would fill in those blanks, due to the fact that fossil evidence was the primary proof needed to verify his theory. Unfortunately for Darwin and his theory, that evidence has been much less forthcoming than he had hoped. In fact, if Mr. Guterl had checked his own publication’s archives before he printed his misleading article, he would have discovered that in the November 3, 1980 issue of Newsweek, Jerry Adler went on record as stating: “Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment” (96[18]:95, emp. added). Nothing in this regard has changed in the more than two decades since Mr. Adler made his admission.
The cover of the March 1-7, 2008 issue of NewScientist pictures an illustrator’s attempt at drawing a half fish/half reptilian creature. Above the illustration is the title: “Amazing Missing Links: Creatures that Reveal the Real Power of Evolution.” Allegedly, evolutionists “have abundant evidence for how all the major groups of animals are related, much of it in the form of excellent transitional fossils” (Prothero, 2008, 197[2645]:35). After making half a page of introductory comments, the author, Donald Prothero, listed several alleged transitional fossils, which supposedly “are conclusive proof that evolution has occurred, and is still occurring” (p. 41). Included in this list were a variety of animals—from velvet worms to dinosaurs, and giraffes to manatees. Readers, however, have to go no further than Prothero’s introduction to see the inaccuracy of his assertions.
Prothero introduced his list of “transitional forms” that supposedly prove evolution with two examples to which science dealt a crushing blow long ago. Prothero wrote: “Darwin’s 1859 prediction that transitional forms would be found was quickly confirmed. In 1861 the first specimen of Archaeopteryx—a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds—was discovered, and in the 1870s the iconic sequence of fossil horses was documented” (p. 35, emp. added). Of the alleged “numerous fossils and fossil sequences showing evolutionary change,” Prothero chose to begin his article with Archaeopteryx and the “sequence of horse fossils,” both of which are supposedly “documented” proof of evolution. In truth,Archaeopteryx and the horse family tree are light years away from confirming evolution.
Regarding horse evolution, the fossil record simply does not bear out what NewScientist writer Prothero claimed. In fact, due to the glaring lack of fossil evidence linking the various horse “family members” together, even prominent evolutionists have abandoned the “horse evolution” argument. Prothero claimed that as far back as “the 1870s the iconic sequence of fossil horses was documented” (p. 35). Since that time, however, evolutionists such as Dr. George Gaylord Simpson have admitted, “The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature” (Simpson, 1953, p. 125, emp. added). In a 2000 article that appeared in the journalNatural History, Dr. Stephen Jay Gould soundly criticized science textbooks’ use of misinformationsurrounding the evolution of horses. He wrote:
Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because, as stated above, textbooks copy from previous texts. (I have written two essays on this lamentable practice: one on the amusingly perennial description of the eohippus, or “dawn horse,” as the size of a fox terrier, even though most authors, including yours truly, have no idea of the dimensions or appearance of this breed...) [2000, 109[2]:45, emp. added].
In light of such statements by renowned evolutionists, one wonders how Prothero can be so confident that the evolution of horses was documented by fossils as far back as the 1870s. Is Prothero’s article just another example of how “misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent” in many evolutionary writings?
And what about Archaeopteryx? Is it a “confirmed” transitional form, as Prothero asserted? Simply becauseArchaeopteryx has teeth in its beak and claws on its wings, does not prove that it was the transitional form between reptiles and birds. Consider that some modern birds have claws on their wings, and yet no one thinks of them as being missing links. The African bird known as touraco has claws on its wings, as does the hoatzin of South America when it is young. Both of these birds use their fully functional claws to grasp branches and climb trees. If you have ever seen an ostrich close up, you might have noticed that it, too, has claws on each wing and can use them if attacked. Obviously, simply because a bird in the fossil record is discovered with claws on its wings does not mean that it is a transitional fossil.
In 1993, Science News reported that an odd fossil bird had been unearthed in Mongolia. It supposedly is millions of years younger than Archaeopteryx and, interestingly, had teeth in its beak (Monasterky, 1993, 143:245). As with the claws on the wings of Archaeopteryx, evolutionists cannot prove that the presence of teeth make the animal something more than a bird. What’s more, consider that while most reptiles have teeth, turtles do not. And, some fish and amphibians have teeth, while other fish and amphibians have no teeth. How can evolutionists be so sure that Archaeopteryx’s teeth make it a dinosaur-bird link? Such an assertion is based on unprovable assumptions.
Archaeopteryx also had fully formed feathers, just like living birds. Fossils of Archaeopteryx leave no hint of the animal being a half-scaly/half-feathered creature. It was not in some kind of in-between stage. Furthermore, “[e]xperts don’t know what Archaeopteryx’s closest [alleged—KB/EL] dinosaur ancestor looked like—fossils haven’t yet been found” (“Fossil Evidence,” 2007), i.e., evolutionists have been entirely unsuccessful in finding the real alleged transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds.
Finally, what makes the suggestion that Archaeopteryx was the missing link between reptiles and birds even more unbelievable is that “[a]nother bird fossil found in the desert of west Texas in 1983, Protoavis, is dated even earlier, 75 million years before Archaeopteryx” (DeYoung, 2000, p. 37, emp. added). Although some paleontologists have questions about the fossil remains of Protoavis (birds, after all, were not supposed to be around with the “earliest dinosaurs”), Dr. Chatterjee of Texas Tech University “has pointed out, the skull of Protoavis has 23 features that are fundamentally bird-like, as are the forelimbs, the shoulders, and the hip girdle” (Harrub and Thompson, 2001). In 1991, Science magazine ran a story titled “Early Bird Threatens Archaeopteryx’s Perch,” wherein Alan Anderson wrote: “His [Chaterjee’s—KB/EL] reconstruction also shows a flexible neck, large brain, binocular vision, and, crucially, portals running from the rear of the skull to the eye socket—a feature seen in modern birds but not dinosaurs” (253:35).
The fact is, the fossil record does not, in any way, demonstrate that dinosaurs evolved into birds or that horses evolved from little, dog-like creatures. Ironically, although Prothero, writing for New Scientist, wrote that a “favourite lie” of creationists is ‘there are no transitional fossils’” (2008, 197[2645]:35), evolutionistMark Ridley wrote an article for the same journal 27 years earlier and confessed that “no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation...” (1981, 90:832, emp. added).
EVOLUTION CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
Darwin’s theory of evolution is false for a host of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it cannot account for the origin of life. According to Darwin, the simple cell, which he honestly thought was simple—contrary to modern cell biology—could have arisen from non-living chemicals in a warm little chemical pond (Darwin, 1959, 2:202).
Every evolutionary scientist must recognize that the fundamental tenet of organic evolution is the idea that life arose from non-living material substances such as chemicals. This idea, often referred to as spontaneous generation, certainly is testable. Ironically, however, biological scientists have been testing this idea for centuries and have discovered that life in this Universe does not and cannot arise spontaneously from natural processes. This fact is well-known and admitted even by evolutionary scientists. George Wald, the Harvard professor who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, wrote in Biological Sciences: “If life comes only from life, does this mean that there was always life on earth? It must, yet we know that this cannot be so. We know that the world was once without life—that life appeared later. How? We think it was by spontaneous generation” (1963, p. 42, emp. added). David Kirk noted: “By the end of the nineteenth century there was general agreement that life cannot arise from the nonliving under conditions that now exist upon our planet. The dictum ‘All life from preexisting life’ became the dogma of modern biology, from which no reasonable man could be expected to dissent” (1975, p. 7). Even the eminent evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson and his colleagues observed that “there is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell” (1965, p. 144, emp. added). And marine biologist Martin Moe stated:
A century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life, that the nucleus governs the cell through the molecular mechanisms of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and that the amount of DNA and its structure determine not only the nature of the species but also the characteristics of individuals (1981, p. 36, emp. added).
In 2005, Dr. Robert Hazen, a well-respected origins-of-life researcher, produced a college-level course titled “Origins of Life.” In that course, he made several telling admissions. He stated: “First, this course is unusual because at this point in time, there is much that we don’t know about how life emerged on Earth” (p. 5). He further declared:
This course focuses exclusively on the scientific approach to the question of life’s origins. In this lecture series, I make an assumption that life emerged from basic raw materials.... Even with this scientific approach, there is a possibility that we’ll never know how life originated.... If life is the result of an infinitely improbable succession of chemical steps, then any scientific attempt to understand life’s origin is doomed to failure (1:6, emp. added).
According, then, to every piece of experimental datum that has been collected, life in this material Universe does not arise from non-living chemicals. Thousands of experiments have been designed and executed, each of which verify this fact (for more information see Thompson, 1989). Biogenesis deals the crushing blow to Darwin’s theory.
EVOLUTION FALSLY IMPLIES THAT THERE IS NO MORAL STANDARD
In grappling with the moral implications of his theory, Charles Darwin arrived at the only conclusion that can be inferred logically. He stated: “A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones” (1958, p. 94, emp. added).
William Provine, a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the distinguished Cornell University, commented on Darwin’s position on morals as they relate to evolution. Eleven years ago, Provine delivered the keynote address at the second annual Darwin Day on the campus of the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. In an abstract of that speech, on UT’s Darwin Day Web site, Provine’s introductory comments are recorded in the following words: “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent” (1998, emp. added).
Carefully notice the underlying effects of such assertions. If there is no God, as Darwin admitted evolution implies, then humans are not bound by any moral standard other than the instincts that each human desires to follow. Thus, if one person considers it best to beat his children, while another considers it best to lovingly nurture his children, according to evolution, both would be acting in accord with their evolutionary origins, and neither would be guilty of any real, moral right or wrong. [NOTE: cf. two previousReason & Revelation articles document what happens when Darwin’s thoughts are practically applied to the human experience (see Butt, 2008a, Butt, 2008b).] Heinously immoral actions, such as infanticide, rape, murder, sexual promiscuity, pedophilia, homosexuality, adultery, and abortion, have all found justification in Darwin’s theory. Darwin’s theory implies that humans can act like animals without any moral responsibility.
CONCLUSION
In the creation/evolution debate, 2009 promises to be an eventful year. Darwin will be honored, adored, praised, and worshiped by his faithful followers, in spite of the fact that his ideas were not only wrong, but often detrimental to the moral fabric of human society. In this article, we have provided only a few of the myriad evidences that disprove evolution. We could multiply this material by 100 and still only scratch the surface of all the lines of evidence that “kill” the theory of evolution. As Darwin himself said years ago: “To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact” (“The Quotable Darwin,” 2009).
REFERENCES
Adler, Jerry (1980), “Is Man a Subtle Accident?,” Newsweek, 96[18]:95, November 3.
Anderson, Alan (1991), “Early Bird Threatens Archaeopteryx’s Perch,” Science, 253:35, July 5.
Butt, Kyle (2008a), “The Bitter Fruits of Atheism [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3740.
Butt, Kyle (2008b), “The Bitter Fruits of Atheism [Part II],” Reason & Revelation, [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3762.
“Darwin: Big Idea, Big Exhibition” (2009), [On-line], URL: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/darwin/index.html.
Darwin, Charles (1860), The Origin of Species (New York: The Modern Library, reprint).
Darwin, Charles (1958), The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Barlow (New York: W.W. Norton).
“Darwin Day Celebration” (2009), [On-line], URL: http://www.darwinday.org/.
“Darwin Day Event Listing” (2009), [On-line], URL: http://www.darwinday.org/events/listing.php?id=12491.
Darwin, Francis (1959), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (New York: Basic Books).
Dawkins, Richard (1996), The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton).
DeYoung, Don (2000), Dinosaurs and Creation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Dini, Michael (no date), “Letters of Recommendation,” [On-line], URL:http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm.
Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1973), “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” The American Biology Teacher, March, [On-line], URL:http://www.evolutionary.tripod.com/dobzhansky_abt_35_125-29.html.
“Fossil Evidence” (2007), NOVA, [On-line], URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/transitional.html.
Garner, Paul (2009), “Do Species Change?,” Answers In Genesis [On-line], URL:http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/species-change#fn species-change#fnMark_1_1_1.
Geelan, Thomas (no date), “An Interdisciplinary Course in Evolution,” [On-line], URL:http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/AEF/1996/geelan_evolution.html.
Gould, Stephen Jay (2000), “Abscheulich! (Atrocious),” Natural History, 109[2]:42-50, March.
Grant, Peter and Rosemary Grant (2006), “Evolution of Character Displacement in Darwin’s Finches,”Science, 313[5784]:224-226, July 14, [On-line], URL:http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5784/224.
Guterl, Fred (2002), “Evolution: Birds Do It,” Newsweek, 139[18]:11, May 6.
Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2001), “Archaeopteryx, Archaeoraptor, and the ‘Dinosaurs-to-Birds’ Theory [Part 1],” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/473.
Hazen, Robert (2005), Origins of Life (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).
Kirk, David (1975), Biology Today (New York: Random House).
Moe, Martin A. (1981), “Genes on Ice,” Science Digest, 89[11]:36,95, December.
MacBeth, Norman (1971), Darwin Retried (Boston, MA: Gambit).
Monastersky, Richard (1993), “A Clawed Wonder Unearthed in Mongolia,” Science News, 143:245, April 17.
Prothero, Donald (2008), “What Missing Link?” NewScientist, 197[2645]:35-41, March 1-7.
Provine, William (1998), “Evolution: Free Will and Punishment and Meaning in Life,” [On-line], URL:http://eeb.bio.utk.edu/darwin/DarwinDayProvine Address.htm.
“The Quotable Darwin” (2009), Scientific American, 300[1]:41.
Reeve, E.C. and Isobel Black, eds. (2001), Encyclopedia of Genetics, [On-line], URL:http://books.google.com/books?id=JjLWYKqehRsC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=Drosophila+Fruit+fly+mutations&source=web&ots=V5yPPBPE6h&sig=fOkUS_qLsARelWN Dqpe5uhq70mI&hl=en.
Rennie, John (2009), “Dynamic Darwinism,” Scientific American, 300[1]:6.
Ridley, Mark (1981), “Who Doubts Evolution?” NewScientist, June 25, 90: 832.
Schmid, Randolph (2006), “Finches on Galapagos Islands Evolving,” [On-line], URL:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060713/ap_on_sc/darwin_evolution;_ylt= AtMK7RaDjqo_NxNgdj2Hih.s0NUE;_ylu= X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBH NlYwM3NTM-.
Sherwin, Frank (no date), “Fruit Flies in the Face of Macroevolution,” [On-line], URL:http://www.icr.org/article/2602/.
Simpson, George Gaylord (1953), Life of the Past (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).
Simpson, G.G., C.S. Pittendrigh, and L.H. Tiffany (1965), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World).
“Study: Darwin’s Finches Rapidly Evolving” (2006), [On-line], URL: http://www.macnews world.com/story/dP6qz1CRQ QfO4/-Study-Darwins-Finches-Rapidly-Evolving.
Thompson, Bert (1989), “The Bible and the Laws of Science: The Law of Biogenesis,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2004.
Wald, George (1963), Biological Science: An Inquiry Into Life (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World).
“The Years of Thinking Dangerously” (2008-2009), NewScientist, 200[2687/2688]:70-71.