Evolution: Fact or Fantasy?
by Dan Wafford 6/28/2011 / Christian Apologetics
There is a history of antagonism between science and Christianity, mostly in the form of derision by scientists of the historical accuracy of the Bible.
The most prominent example of this, of course, is the theory of evolution -- a theory that is generally taught in classrooms around the world as accepted fact.
But the theory of evolution stands on very shaky ground. The original concept theorized by Darwin was that animals adapted to their environments. Sometimes these adaptations gave them the ability to compete more successfully than their non-adapted peers, and they therefore survived longer and in greater numbers, providing them the opportunity to produce more offspring. Eventually the adapted offspring completely displaced the non-adapted -- the concept popularized as "survival of the fittest."
In order for this supposed chain of events to result in "evolved" species, the animals' adaptations must be passed on to their offspring. For example, polar bears might have "evolved" as the result of brown or black bears migrating north, and those bears with somewhat lighter-shaded fur having an advantage over their darker-colored peers through enhanced camouflage in the snowy environment. Over time, this advantage was bred into offspring until these bears "evolved" into pure white.
It wasn't too many years until genetic science advanced to the point to recognize that such adaptations that animals might make were not encoded in their genes, and therefore could not be passed to their offspring. But did that deter the proponents of evolutionism? No, they simply devised a new mechanism to explain how evolution could take place.
In the new theory, often called neo-Darwinism, mutations occur in the genetic sequence. At this point, evolutionists are at least on solid scientific ground: mutations in the genes and genetic sequence are a well-established fact. This is where fact ends, however, and the evolutionists once again wander off into unfounded fantasy.
These mutations, they speculate, could in some cases be the actual cause of those beneficial adaptations observed in animals. In other words, the adaptations didn't come first, to be inherited by offspring, but rather the genetic alteration occurred in the process of reproduction, resulting in the adaptations. Sometimes these mutations might result in changes that were not beneficial and did not provide the altered animals any competitive advantage, in which case they would not compete successfully and would die out. But in other cases the genetic mutations might result in changes that did provide competitive advantage, with the result that the altered animals would survive and reproduce more successfully, eventually crowding out the unchanged animals. Voila: evolution!
Well, at least this new theory enjoys the advantage that it is theoretically possible. And upon this possibility the evolutionists hang all their hopes. But alas, they are still as blind to the facts as ever, because simple observation will show that this theory is as hopeless as Darwin's original.
Why can I say this with such confidence? Because many, many genetic mutations have been identified: hundreds, perhaps even thousands -- the number is continually growing as new mutations are regularly identified and cataloged. Many of them are well known to you, although you may not have realized it. Let's look at just a few:
Amyotropic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease)
Anemia in various forms
You can see that I've stopped the list with the A's -- and I've included only those genetic disorders that are well known. A quick check with Wikipedia will show a list of 79 genetic disorders under the letter A. This number is not exact, because there is some overlap and a few that reference the same disease under another name. And the list goes on and on. If you wish to review it, here is the link to the relevant page in Wikipedia:
But the principal point to be taken away is this: there are hundreds or thousands of known human genetic disorders. All of them -- that bears repeating: all of them -- are harmful across a range from nuisance to total debilitation to fatality. This fact alone blows the neo-Darwinian theory of beneficial evolution by genetic mutation completely out of the water. Not one beneficial genetic mutation has ever been identified, despite the many evolutionary theorists who are working feverishly toward this end.
But there is yet another point to consider. For evolution to succeed, beneficial mutations must spread throughout the population and displace the non-mutated. You can read much in the evolutionary literature about how many generations should pass before a mutation spreads throughout a given population. Yet we see no spread of any of these mutations through human society. They remain anomalies, exceptions to the rule of generally healthy minds and bodies in the human population. So even if "beneficial mutations" were a fact and not a wishful myth, there is proof positive that they would not spread throughout the population.
This only makes sense when you think about it. When the minority of a population possesses a certain characteristic, that characteristic will tend very strongly toward being bred out, not in: if the minority breeds with the majority, the trait will be diluted. If the minority only interbreeds, they will be overwhelmed by the vastly superior numbers of the majority.
At this point, some evolutionists diehards will say, "Wait a minute! We're talking about the spread of beneficial mutations. Beneficial mutations provide a competitive advantage that will eventually cause the mutated to displace the non-mutated." This argument doesn't wash, either. Look at the flip side of the coin of harmful mutations: in this light, normal regeneration is itself a beneficial mutation. And the vast majority of reproductions are in fact normal -- yet they have not succeeded in overwhelming and displacing the harmful mutations, despite very significant competitive advantages.
Another weakness in the evolution myth is the total absence of any evidence to support such a theory. When evolutionists are asked, "Why don't we see evolution taking place today?" They answer, "Evolution occurs too slowly to be observed in the human life span, or even in the extent of human history: it requires billions of years and millions of generations."
Yet when asked why the fossil record is not filled with "transitional forms," between evolving species, they answer, "Well, you see, evolution occurs in fits and starts. There may be a stasis for a long period of time, with no change whatsoever, and then there will be a spurt of evolution, quickly resulting in many new forms of life. This sudden burst of evolutionary change occurs so quickly that it is virtually impossible that any of the transitional forms would be captured in the fossil record." (They are forced into this argument because the fossil record actually shows that all species have appeared on the earth suddenly, without any transitional forms linking them.)
So on the one hand, they argue that evolution occurs too slowly to be observed, while on the other hand they argue that it occurs too quickly to be recorded in the fossil record. This kind of irrational argument is necessary when you are trying to defend a false theory.
Evolutionists also love to argue on the micro level, about how this particular feature or that particular organ might have evolved from some other structure. What they cannot in any way explain is how the human body works as a system. How can a vast collection of disparate and totally dissimilar parts organize themselves into a system whereby a remote part of the body communicates a need through a vast neuronal network to the brain, which responds to that need by sending another electrical signal to a gland in another remote part of the body, instructing it to secrete a hormone which will enter into a vast network of arteries and capillaries that just happens -- oh happy coincidence! -- to reach every cell in the body, where it will be transported to some other structure in the body to be absorbed, resulting in a chemical reaction that will stimulate some other remote part of the body to perform some function that will meet the communicated need -- and most likely with the participation and support of many other parts of the system? We have only, after several thousand years of intense effort by many millions, begun to succeed as humans in designing systems that are one billionth as sophisticated -- and those we design, despite all this advancement, work very imperfectly. For support of this argument, I give you your very own very temperamental personal computer. Yet evolutionists would have us believe this most perfect and intricate of all possible systems is nothing but a collection of genetic accidents!
Evolution remains very much a fantasy without any basis in evidence, in repeatable experiment, or even in viable theory. The only reason it enjoys so many supporters is the fact that the only alternative explanation for the abundance of life on the earth is that given in the Bible: God created it. It is easier for the vast majority of scientists to believe 20 impossible things before breakfast than it is to accept the simple fact of a sovereign Creator.
It is frustrating to argue with those who will not see the truth staring them in the face, but we must obey God's instruction to love them and continue to witness to them in the hope that they will someday recognize the loving Father Who created them.
Dan Wafford lives in beautiful coastal Georgia. He holds a BS in Civil Engineering from Oklahoma State University and an MBA from Stanford University. He writes Christian articles, essays, songs and books, as well as novels and popular music. His book The DiVine Code, which reveals details of encoded messages in the Bible, is currently available at Amazon.com. More information about The DiVine Code is available at http://www.thedivinecodebook.com