Many excellent books detail Scientific findings and conclusions that compelllngly demonstrate the Impossibility of evolution as an explanation for the variety of life on earth. It's also helpful to remember that evolution ¡cannot offer an explanation for the origin of our magnificent universe; evolution seeks to explain only how life proliferated In a universe that already existed.
If you would like to dig more deeply Into the case against evolution, we recommend the following books, many written by people with science backgrounds:
• Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Michael Behe, Ph.D., associate professor of biochemistry, Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, 1996. Demonstrates that the minute building blocks of life—cells and their myriad components—are far too complex for their codependent parts and processes to have evolved without an outside, Intelligent design at work.
• Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life, Allster McGrath, professor of historical theology, Oxford University, 2005. Professor McGrath, a former atheist himself who holds a Ph.D. In molecular biophysics, takes on the assumptions of popular evolutionary proponent Richard Dawkins and the atheistic worldvlew he promotes.
• The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World, Allster McGrath, 2004. Professor McGrath traces the history and rise of modern atheism, fueled In large part by Darwin's theory of evolution, and how It has Influenced the world.
• What Darwin Didn't Know, Geoffrey Simmons, M.D., 2004. Dr. Simmons dissects the theory of evolution from the perspective of a-medical doctor, giving compelling reasons why evolution cannot explain many aspects of the human body. As he notes In the Introduction, If Darwin's Origin of Species were submitted to a scientific publisher today, It would likely be rejected due to the author's woefully Incomplete understanding of cellular biochemistry, physiology, genetics and other branches of science that deal with the human body.
• Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, edited by William Dembskl, 2004. Dembskl, who holds Ph.D.s In mathematics and philosophy, brings together essays from Intellectuals of various fields who not only explain the scientific weaknesses of Darwinism, but contend that the best scientific evidence actually argues against Darwinian evolution.
• Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design, edited by William Dembskl, 1998. A collection of academic writings from the fields of physics, astrophysics, biology, anthropology, mechanical engineering and mathematics that challenge Darwinism and offer evidence supporting Intelligent design In the universe.
• Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, M.D., Ph.D., senior research fellow, University of Otago, New Zealand, 1996. A molecular biologist, Denton examines features of the natural world that mutation and natural selection cannot explain and shows the Impossibility of transitional forms required for Darwinian evolution to have taken place.
each other by descent from common ancestors.
Professor Johnson expresses it this way: "Darwin proposed a naturalistic explanation for the essentialist features of the living world that was so stunning in its logical appeal that it conquered the scientific world even while doubts remained about some important parts of his ution: Re
• Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence From :ienc and the Bible, Alan Hay-v\ PW; 1985. Written by a British physicist, an Insightful book on the pros and cons of the evolutlon-vs.-science controversy.
• The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Francis Hitching, 1982. Points out many of the problems In the traditional view of evolution.
• Darwin on Trial, Phillip Johnson, professor of law, University of California, Berkeley, 1993. Shows that the weight of scientific evidence argues convincingly against the theory of evolution.
• Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education, Phillip Johnson, 1995. Discusses the cultural Implications of belief In evolution—that Is, that the philosophy behind Darwinian evolution has become In effect the dominant established religion In many societies.
• Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, Phillip Johnson, 1997. Written specifically for older students and their parents and teachers to prepare them for the antlrellglon bias Inherent In most advanced education.
• Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law & Culture, Phillip Johnson, 1998. Compilation of essays ranging from evolution and culture to law and religion.
• Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils, Marvin Lubenow, 1992. Documents the serious problems with the supposed links between man and apes.
• Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, Richard Milton, 1997. A science journalist and non-creationist, Milton reveals the circular reasoning Darwinists must rely on for their arguments
while discussing data widely acknowledged In scientific circled
• Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism, James Perloff, 1995. A self-professed former atheist offers an easy^ to-read view of evidence contradicting Darwin-Ism, Including many quotations from evolutionists and creationists. (The title Is taken from a British astronomer's assessment that the likelihood of higher life-forms emerging through random mutation Is comparable to saying a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could build a Boeing 747 airliner.)
• Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, Lee Spetner, Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1998. Demonstrates that a fundamental premise of neo-Darwlnlsm—that random mutation created the kinds of variations that allowed macroevolutlon to take place—Is fatally flawed and could never have happened as Darwinists claim.
• Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., Yale University and University of California, Berkeley, 2000. A postdoctoral biologist documents that the most-used examples Darwinists call on to support evolution are fraudulent or misleading.
• The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., 2006. Dr. Wells shows that the best scientific evidence, far from supporting Darwinism, actually supports Intelligent design.
Although the publishers of this booklet do not agree with every conclusion presented In these books, we think they present a persuasive and compelling case that the theory of evolution Is fundamentally and fatally flawed.
theory. He theorized that the discontinuous groups of the living world were the descendants of long-extinct common ancestors. Relatively closely related groups (like reptiles, birds, and mammals) shared a relatively recent common ancestor; all vertebrates shared a more ancient common ancestor; and all animals shared a still more ancient common ancestor. He then proposed that the ancestors must have been linked to their descendants by long chains of transitional intermediates, also extinct" (p. 64).
Evolutionists exercise selective perception when looking at the evidence—rather like deciding whether to view half a glass of water as half empty or half full. They choose to dwell on similarities rather than differences. By doing so they lead you away from the truth of the matter: that similarities are evidence of a common Designer behind the structure and function of the life-forms. Each species of animal was created and designed to exist and thrive in a particular way. Darwin and the subsequent proponents of the evolutionary view of life focused on similarities within the major classifications of animals and drew the assumption that those similarities prove that all animals are related to one another through common ancestors.
However, there are major differences in the life-forms on earth. If, as evolution supposes, all life-forms had common ancestors and chains of intermediates linking those ancestors, the fossil record should overflow with many such intermediate forms between species. But as we have already seen, paleontologists themselves admit it shows no such thing.
Since the fossil record does not support the traditional evolutionary view, what does it show?
We have already seen how several well-known paleontologists admit that the fossil record shows the sudden appearance of life-forms. As Stephen Jay Gould puts it, "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors: it appears all at once and 'fully formed'" (Gould, pp. 13-14).
When we sweep away the evolutionary bias inherent in most presentations of the fossil record, we find that the record does not show a gradual ascent from simple to complex. Consider some of the earliest fossils found, those of bacteria. What is interesting about bacteria is that they are not simple organisms at all.
What Does the Fossil Record Show?
In reality there are no simple life-forms. Modern technology has shown that even a single cell is extraordinarily complex.
Michael Behe is associate professor of biochemistry at Pennsylvania' s Lehigh University. Noting scientists' changing perceptions of the most elementary forms of life, he writes: "We humans tend to have a rather exalted opinion of ourselves, and that attitude can color our perception of the biological world. In particular, our attitude about what is higher and lower in biology, what is an advanced organism and what is a primitive organism, starts with the presumption that the pinnacle of nature is ourselves . . . Nonetheless, other organisms, if they could talk, could argue strongly for their own superiority. This includes bacteria, which we often think of as the rudest forms of life" (Darwin 's Black Box, 1996, pp. 69-70).
When Darwin wrote The Origin of Species about a century and a half ago, scientists did not know nearly as much about the cell (and single-celled organisms) as we do today. Darwin thought that single-celled organisms were quite primitive. In fact, at that time many still thought that life could arise naturally from nonliving matter—for example, that decaying meat spontaneously produced flies.
Years passed before French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated, through a series of meticulous experiments, the impossibility of the notion. Yet even Pasteur had quite a battle with scientists of his day in convincing them that life came only from preexisting life-forms.
So Darwin's idea—that single-celled meant simple—was not questioned at the time. Later discoveries have shown that even the single-celled organisms found early in the fossil record are far more complex than Darwin and others could have imagined.
Paleontologists widely consider the Cambrian Period, one of the oldest in their view, to be the earliest in which extensive life-forms are preserved. Since only the remains of marine life are found in Cambrian strata, paleontologists interpret these deposits as dating to a time before land animals had evolved.
The Encarta Encyclopedia says of this time: "By the beginning of the Paleozoic Era, the steadily increasing oxygen content of the atmosphere and oceans . . . had made it possible for the marine environment to support new forms of life that could derive energy from respiration. Although life had not yet invaded dry land or the air, the
34 Creation or Evolution: Does It Really Matter What You Believe?
34 Creation or Evolution: Does It Really Matter What You Believe?
seas of the Cambrian Period teemed with a great variety of marine invertebrates, including sponges, worms, bryozoans ('moss animals'), hydrozoans, brachiopods, mollusks (among them the gastropods and species ancestral to the nautilus), primitive arthropods such as the trilobite, and a few species of stalked echinoderms.
"The only plant life of the time consisted of marine algae. Because many of these new organisms were relatively large, complex marine invertebrates with hard shells and skeletons of chitin or lime, they had a far better chance of fossil preservation than the soft-bodied creatures of the previous Precambrian Era" (1997, "Cambrian Period," emphasis added).
Notice that complex marine invertebrates are found in fossil deposits from the Cambrian Period. Many don't realize it, but even paleontologists acknowledge that life does not start with only a few simple creatures. At the lowest levels of the geologic strata, the fossil record consists of complex creatures such as trilobites.
Time magazine said in a lengthy cover story describing fossilized creatures found in Cambrian strata: "In a burst of creativity like nothing before or since, nature appears to have sketched out the blueprints for virtually the whole of the animal kingdom. This explosion of biological diversity is described by scientists as biology's Big Bang" (Madeleine Nash, "When Life Exploded," Dec. 4, 1995, p. 68).
Contrary to the assumptions of early evolutionists, life does not start with only a few rudimentary species. Even those who hold to the traditional interpretation of the fossil record admit that it begins with many life-forms similar to those we find today. At the same time, they cannot explain such a vast "explosion" of life-forms in such a short amount of geologic time, which evolutionary theory predicts would take far longer.
Supporters of evolution have had to back down from the claims of Darwin and others. "Over the decades, evolutionary theorists beginning with Charles Darwin have tried to argue that the appearance of multicelled animals during the Cambrian merely seemed sudden, and in fact had been preceded by a lengthy period of evolution for which the geological record was missing. But this explanation, while it patched over a hole in an otherwise masterly theory, now seems increasingly unsatisfactory" (ibid.).
Again, the facts etched in stone do not match the assumptions and predictions of evolutionary thought. Even if we accept the evolutionists' interpretation of the fossil record, we see life beginning at the lowest levels with complex creatures, with elaborate organs and other features—but with no known ancestors. Life does not start as predicted by evolution, with simple forms gradually changing into more-complex species.
Although toeing the evolutionary line, the Time magazine article admits: "Of course, understanding what made the Cambrian explosion possible doesn't address the larger question of what made it happen so fast. Here scientists delicately slide across data-thin ice, suggesting scenarios that are based on intuition rather than solid evidence" (p. 73).
Evolutionists have been known to pointedly criticize Christians because they don't have scientific proof of miracles recorded in the Bible. Yet here is a supremely important geological event with far-reaching implications for the theory of evolution—but one for which scientists have no explanation. Of course, they must assume that life came from nonlife—in violation of the laws of biogenesis. Don't their fundamental assumptions, then, also amount to faith?
A reasonable explanation is that the life-forms found in the Cambrian strata were created by God, who did not work by chance but by design.
The fossil record is the only objective evidence we can examine to see whether evolution is true. But, rather than supporting Darwinism, it shows exceedingly complex organisms in what evolutionists interpret as the oldest fossil strata, no intermediate forms between species, little if any change in species over their entire span in the fossil record, and the sudden appearance of new life-forms rather than the gradual change expected by Darwin and his followers.
If we look at the evidence objectively, we realize that the creation story in Genesis 1—describing the sudden appearance of life-forms— is a credible explanation.
36 Creation or Evolution: Does It Really Matter What You Believe?
Was this article helpful?