"THE CASE FOR CREATION"
Difficulties With Evolutionary Science
INTRODUCTION
1. Many people assume that science has proven evolution as a fact...
a. That it is no longer a theory
b. But an irrefutable explanation for the origin of life
c. A good reason to reject the Biblical account of creation
2. This is because most are unaware that...
a. Crucial elements of evolutionary theory have never been proven
b. There is a growing dissent among scientists regarding
evolution
[In this study I want to illustrate that there are difficulties with
evolutionary science, leading some to suggest that it is a "theory in
crisis". But first we should carefully define our terms...]
I. DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION
A. IN SIMPLEST TERMS...
1. Evolution = change
2. Evolution = change over time
3. Evolution = a process that results in heritable changes in a
population spread over many generations
-- Both creationists and evolutionists agree with this basic definition
B. MICROEVOLUTION...
1. This term generally refers to evolutionary change below the
level of species
2. Though some apply it to changes below the level of genera or even families
a. The Genesis account refers to God creating "according to its kind" - Gen 1:24-25
b. Some understand "kind=species", but "kind" might include
genera or families
3. This change is easily observable, especially within species
4. Even if it were shown that evolution produces a change from one
species to another, it does not necessarily contradict the Genesis account
-- Creationists acknowledge this degree of evolution as factual
C. MACROEVOLUTION...
1. This term generally refers to evolutionary change at or above
the level of species
2. Though some apply it to changes above the level of genera or families
3. This relates to large scale changes over geological time, e.g.,
"from amoeba to man"
4. This degree of change is not observable, but assumed based on extrapolation
-- Evolutionists claim this degree of evolution as factual
D. OTHER TERMS...
1. Darwinism - A theory of organic evolution claiming that new
species arise and are perpetuated by natural selection
2. Neo-Darwinism - A modern Darwinian theory that explains new
species in terms of genetic mutations, more properly known as
Modern Evolution Synthesis
-- In both views, evidence from microevolution is extrapolated to
support macroevolution
[The difficulties of evolutionary science discussed in this lesson
pertain to macroevolution, not microevolution. Microevolution is a
fact, but macroevolution is a theory much in dispute...]
II. DIFFICULTIES WITH EVOLUTION
A. IT IS A LIMITED THEORY...
1. "It is now approximately half a century since the neo-Darwinian
synthesis was formulated. A great deal of research has been
carried on within the paradigm it defines. Yet the successes of
the theory are limited to the interpretation of the minutiae of
evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of moths;
while it has remarkably little to say on the questions which
interest us most, such as how there came to be moths in the
first place." - Ho, Mae-Wan & Saunders, P.T., "Beyond
neo-Darwinism - An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution," Journal
of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 78, 1979
2. "Clearly something is missing from biology. It appears that
Darwin's theory works for the small-scale aspects of evolution:
it can explain the variations and the adaptations within
species that produce fine-tuning of varieties to different
habitats. The large-scale differences of form between types of
organism that are the foundation of biological classification
systems seem to require a principle other than natural
selection operating on small variations, some process that
gives rise to distinctly different forms of organism. This is
the problem of emergent order in evolution, the origins of
novel structures in organisms that has always been a primary
interest in biology." - Goodwin, Brian [Professor of Biology,
Open University, UK], "How The Leopard Changed Its Spots: The
Evolution of Complexity," 1994
-- Microevolution has been proven, but macroevolution has not!
B. IT IS A FAILED THEORY...
1. "Neo-Darwinism has failed as an evolutionary theory that can
explain the origin of species, understood as organisms of
distinctive form and behaviour. In other words, it is not an
adequate theory of evolution. What it does provide is a partial
theory of adaptation, or microevolution (small-scale adaptive
changes in organisms)." - Goodwin, Brian [Professor of Biology,
Open University, UK], "Neo-Darwinism has failed as an
evolutionary theory," The Times Higher Education Supplement, May 19, 1995
2. "My main criticism of Darwinism is that it fails in its initial
objective, which is to explain the origin of species. Now, let
me explain exactly what I mean by that. I mean it fails to
explain the emergence of organisms, the specific forms during
evolution like algae and ferns and flowering plants, corals,
starfish, crabs, fish, birds." - Goodwin, Brian, "An interview
with Professor Brian Goodwin by Dr David King," GenEthics News,
Issue 11. March/April 1996
-- These are not the words of a creationist!
C. IT IS A DYING THEORY...
1. "I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its
unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960's.
Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a
universal description of evolution. The molecular assault came
first, followed quickly by renewed attention to unorthodox
theories of speciation and by challenges at the level of
macroevolution itself. I have been reluctant to admit it-since
beguiling is often forever-but if Mayr's characterization of
the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory, as a
general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its
persistence as textbook orthodoxy." - Gould, Stephen Jay
[Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA],
"Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?,"
Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 1980
2. "More and more workers are showing signs of dissatisfaction
with the synthetic theory. Some are attacking its philosophical
foundations, arguing that the reason that it has been so amply
confirmed is simply that it is unfalsifiable: with a little
ingenuity any observation can be made to appear consistent with
it. Others have been deliberately setting out to work in just
those areas in which neo-Darwinism is least comfortable, like
the problem of the gaps in the fossil record or the mechanisms
of non-Mendelian inheritance. Still others, notably some
systematists, have decided to ignore the theory altogether, and
to carry on their research without any a priori assumption
about how evolution has occurred. Perhaps most significantly of
all, there is now appearing a stream of articles and books
defending the synthetic theory. It is not so long ago that
hardly anyone thought this was necessary." - Ho, Mae-Wan
[Biologist, The Open University, UK] & Saunders, Peter T.
[Mathematician, University of London], eds., "Beyond Neo-
Darwinism: An Introduction to the New Evolutionary Paradigm,"
Academic Press: London, 1984
3. "The 'modern evolutionary synthesis' convinced most biologists
that natural selection was the only directive influence on
adaptive evolution. Today, however, dissatisfaction with the
synthesis is widespread, and creationists and antidarwinians
are multiplying. The central problem with the synthesis is its
failure to show (or to provide distinct signs) that natural
selection of random mutations could account for observed levels
of adaptation." - Leigh, Egbert G., Jr. [Biologist, Smithsonian
Institution, USA], "The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and
creationism," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 14, No. 12
-- Scientists are having to go "back to the drawing board"!
[To my knowledge, the scientists quoted above are not creationists. But
together with many other scientists they illustrate a growing...]
III. DISSENT REGARDING EVOLUTION
A. SCIENTIFIC DISSENT REGARDING DARWINISM...
1. "During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many
scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology,
"artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused
scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of
natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail."
2. "Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and
science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of
evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The
public has been assured that all known evidence supports
Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world
believes the theory to be true."
3. "The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand
as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since
Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of
scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names."
4. "The list is growing and includes scientists from the US
National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech
National Academies, as well as from universities such as
Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others."
5. Their Statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of
random mutation and natural selection to account for the
complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for
Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
6. Over 700 scientists have signed the above statement - The List Of Scientists
-- Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
B. MEDICAL DISSENT REGARDING DARWINISM...
1. "Sadly, academic freedom is no longer assured in many
countries. This is especially true when it involves espousing
views contrary to the theory of Darwinian macroevolution."
2. "Numerous instances have been documented where scientists and
teachers have either been censored or removed from their
positions for allowing or facilitating open discussion of the
empirical problems of macroevolution."
3. "As academia has suppressed freedom of speech in this area,
another avenue needs to be available to promote accurate
information and the free exchange of ideas concerning the
debate over Darwinism and alternative theories on origins."
4. "Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI) was
established as a means for physicians and surgeons to publicly
be counted among those skeptical of nature-driven Darwinian macroevolution."
5. Their statement: "As medical doctors we are skeptical of the
claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection
to account for the origination and complexity of life and we
therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable
theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory."
6. Almost 300 doctors have signed the above statement - The List Of Doctors
-- Physicians And Surgeons For Scientific Integrity
CONCLUSION
1. I have not presented specific problems with macroevolution, such as...
a. The Cambrian explosion
b. Gaps in the fossil records
c. Lack of transitional forms
d. Evidence of humans coexisting with dinosaurs
-- I am not scientist, and willing to let others evaluate such evidence
2. But it does not take a trained scientist to know that macroevolution...
a. Is only a theory, not yet proven
b. Is a leap of blind faith (requiring extrapolation without
sufficient evidence)
-- The major difference between the Biblical account and Darwinian theory
3. My purpose is simply to emphasize...
a. "There is scientific dissent from Darwinism."
b. "It deserves to be heard."
-- Dissent From Evolution, ibid.
Reasons why we do not often hear about such dissent in our schools and
mainstream media will be considered in our next and final lesson...
Note: Quotations in the section "Difficulties With Evolution" were
copied from a compilation of quotes on creation and evolution by Stephen
E. Jones.
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011
