THREE TYPES OF EVOLUTIONISTS—Because natural selection and mutations are the only two means by which evolution could possibly take place, it seems appropriate at the conclusion of these two chapters to discuss certain underlying teachings of evolutionary thinking. When you buy the theory, you get the whole package.
Darwinists adhere to *Darwin's idea that natural selection is the sole mechanism (although in a later book, *Dar-win rejected it—and returned to Lamarckism, the inheritance of acquired characteristics).
Neo-Darwinists declare that the mechanisms by which evolution occurred and are now occurring are mutations, which are then refined by natural selection.
Hopeful monster advocates pin their hopes on sudden, massive mutations, producing a new species all at once. Their view is that a billion-billion beneficial mutations occurs every 50,000 years in two newborns—a male and a female—lo cated a short distance apart.
Until the 1930s, the Darwinists were in the majority; thereafter the neo-Darwinists held sway until the early 1980s, when many turned to the hopeful monster view.
Although they hide it from the general public, the evolutionists feel rather hopeless about the situation.
EIGHT STRANGE TEACHINGS OF EVOLUTION— Evolutionary theory is founded on eight pillars of foolishness. The three types of evolutionists accept the following eight points as absolute truth:
(1) Evolution operates in a _purposeless manner. The mechanisms must be purposeless. Otherwise they would indicate an Intelligence at work, and evolutionists fear to consider this possibility.
(2) Evolution operates in a random manner. Anything can happen, and in any possible way. Once again, there must be no intimation of Intelligence at work.
On the basis of the two mechanisms (mutations and natural selection) and the two modes (purposelessness and randomness), only confusion; disorientation; randomness; and ever-failing, useless results could occur.
But evolutionists fiercely maintain that the two mechanisms and two modes operate specifically in six ways. The _following six sub-hypotheses of evolution run totally contrary to the above two hypotheses.
(3) Evolution operates upward, never downward. Although they do not say it that bluntly very often, by this they mean that evolutionary processes always produce positive results,—outcomes that are always improvements on what the organism was like previously.
"Natural selection allows the successes, but 'rubs out' the failures. Thus, selection creates complex order, without the need for a designing mind. All of the fancy arguments about a number of improbabilities, having to be swallowed at one gulp, are irrelevant. Selection makes the improbable, actual."—*Michael Ruse,
Darwinism Defended (1982), p. 308.
(4) Evolution operates irreversibly. By this they mean that evolution can only "go in one direction," as they call it. A frog, for example, may evolve into a bird; but, by some strange quirky "law" of evolution, the process cannot reverse! A bird will never evolve into a frog, nor will a vertebrate evolve into a worm. A monkey can produce human children, but people will never produce monkeys. It is indeed strange how the evolutionists' random actions can only go in a certain direction!
"The still more remarkable fact is that this evolutionary drive to greater and greater order also is irreversible. Evolution does not go backward."—*J.H. Rush, The Dawn of Life (1962), p. 35.
This theory of irreversibility is known as Dollo's Law. *Dollo first stated it in 1893 in this way:
"An organism is unable to return, even partially, to a previous stage already realized in the ranks of its ancestors."—*Dollo, quoted in "Ammonites Indicate Reversal, " in Nature, March 21, 1970.
*Gerald Smith of the University of Michigan has reported finding "reversals" in the fossil record of Idaho fishes. In his article, he suggests there are many such cases of reversals in the fossil record but that they are considered "anomalies" and not reported (*Gerald R. Smith, "Fishes of the Pliocene Glenns Ferry Formation, Southwest Idaho, " Papers on Paleontology, No. 14, 1975, published by the University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology).
*Bjom Kurten, a Finnish paleontologist, writes about fossil lynxes, which lost a tooth, and then regained it. (We are elsewhere told that some lynxes today have it and some do not.) In commenting on the discovery, Kurten says:
"Even more astonishing is the fact that this seems to be coupled with the re-appearance of M2, a structure unknown in Felidae since the Miocene. All of this, of course, is completely at variance with one of the most cherished principles of evolutionary paleontology, namely Dollo's Law. This would then be an example of a structure totally lost and then regained in similar form,—which is something that simply cannot happen according to Dollo's Law."—*Bjorn Kurten, "Return of a Lost Structure in the Evolution of the Felid Dentition, " in Societas Scientiarum Fennica, Commentationes Biologicae, XXVI(4):3 (1963).
Whether or not the tooth disappeared for a time, the species it was in never changed.
Random mutations modified by random actions ("natural selection" is nothing more than random action) do not operate in one direction only. If you take a deck of cards or a pile of dominos and kick them around awhile, they will not gradually work themselves into a better and still better numerical sequence. Random actions just do not produce such results.
(5) Evolution operates from smaller to bigger. This particular point is called Cope's law by the evolutionists. We here dealing with size. Small creatures are said to always evolve into larger ones, but never into smaller ones.
On this basis, evolutionists came up with their "horse series," which we will discuss in chapter 17, Evolutionary Showcase.
But any paleontologist can tell you that fossils were often much larger in the past than they are today. For example, sharks; but, of course, they were still sharks.
"To whatever extent Cope's 'Law' may have applied during the formation of fossiliferous strata, it appears that its trend is now reversed. Practically all modern plants and animals, including man, are represented in the fossil record by larger specimens than are now living (e.g., giant beaver, saber-tooth tiger, mammoth, cave bear, giant bison, etc.)." —John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris, Genesis Flood (1961), p. 285.
"Since man lived at least 11 times longer before the Flood, the mammals, birds, insects, fish and reptiles lived longer than they do today. Therefore, they were getting larger, heavier, and changing in various ways.
Compare a 50 year-old elephant to a 200 year-old wooly mammoth. They differ primarily in size, weight, length of tusks and amount of hair."—Bany Busfield, "Where are the Dinosaurs Now?" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1982, p. 234.
(6) Evolution operates _ from less complex to more complex. Because of this hypothesis, evolutionists are particularly devastated by the statements of scientists, that the forms of life in the Cambrian (the lowest) sedimentary level are very complex.
"For years evolutionists have been constructing phy-logenetic or evolutionary 'family trees' on the basis of the supposed 'one way' character of the fossil record. Using present day specialized forms, they have gone back into the fossil record looking for more generalized ancestors of the present day forms."—Marvin L. Lubenow, "Reversals in the Fossil Record," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1977, p. 186.
We will learn later that in the lowest layer of strata (the Cambrian), laid down by the Flood, was buried a wide variety of complex creatures. Below the Cambrian, there are no life-forms.
The science of random action and random numerical order and operations is known as "probabilities." Any mathematician or student of probabilities will tell you that randomness never (1) works exclusively from less complex ordered designs to more complex ordered designs, and (2) in fact, randomness never produces any complex order of any kind! Random actions only result in disarray and confusion. Randomness ruins, crumbles, and scatters. It never builds, produces better organization, or more involved complexity.
(7) Evolution operates _from less _perfect to more _perfect. This teaching directly clashes with another theory of Darwinists, that evolution produces useless organs or "vestiges" (see chapter 16, "Vestiges and Recapitulation").
(8) Evolution is not repeatable. *Patterson declares that evolutionary theory is safe from the prying eye of scientific analysis, for it deals with events "which are unrepeatable."
"If we accept Popper's distinction between science and non-science, we must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudo-scientific (metaphysical). Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a simple process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable, and so not subject to test."—*Colin Patterson, Evolution (1978), pp. 145-146.
*Dobzhansky, another resolute evolutionist, agreed:
"The evolutionary happenings . . of paleontology and paleobiology are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible."— *T. Dobzhansky, "On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology, " in American Scientist 45 (1957), p. 388.
SCIENTISTS SAY IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC—Elsewhere, *Patterson again reiterated the past occurrence of evolution, and agreed with *Karl Popper (the leading evolutionary philosopher of the twentieth century) that the theory was "metaphysical" and not "scientific." They tell the public that evolution is "scientific," but among themselves, they admit it is something quite different.
"So, at present, we are left with neo-Darwinian theory: that evolution has occurred, and has been directed mainly by natural selection, with random contributions from genetic drift, and perhaps the occasional hopeful monster. In this form, the theory is not scientific by Popper's standards. Indeed, Popper calls the theory of evolution not a scientific theory but 'a metaphysical research programme.' "—*Colin Patterson, Evolution (1978), p. 149.
Thus, the experts tell us that there is no evidence for evolution. Yet, if any evidence could be found in defense of the theory, you can be assured the evolutionists would be quick to bring it forward and triumphantly declare their theory to now rank in the category of "science."
According to their theory, evolution is "not re-peatable." By that, they mean that each species was made only one time. —But if evolution did not repeat itself at least twice, making male and female, how then did the new species reproduce?
Evolution reminds us of a giant puzzle, which keeps getting bigger the more we work at it. The more we try to solve the problem, the more there is to solve. It is a never-ending task.
Of course there is a simple solution: Just trash the whole theory.
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
Was this article helpful?