The Nature of Theories on Origins
In order for a theory to qualify as a scientific theory it must be supported by observations that are repeatably observable and the theory must, in principle, be falsifiable. That is, there must be some way to demonstrate that the theory is false if indeed it is false. Neither creation nor evolution fulfills the criteria of a scientific theory. There were no human observers to the origin of the universe, the origin of life, or to the origin of a single living thing. These events occurred in the unobservable past and are not repeatable in the present. Creation and evolution are inferences based on circumstantial evidence. They are theories about history. Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard professor and a leading spokesman for evolutionary theory today, states that “Evolutionary biology is a quintessential historical discipline” and he pays great honor to evolutionist Ernst Mayr as a “great historical scientist.” 1
Is an evolutionary event observable, even repeatably observable? Theodosius Dobzhansky, a famous evolutionist, has said,
Those evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter. And yet it is just such impossibility that is demanded by anti-evolutionists when they ask for “proofs” of evolution which they would magnanimously accept as satisfactory. 2
Dobzhansky thus stated that the applicability of the experimental method to evolution is an “impossibility.” One reason given by Dobzhansky and other evolutionists for rejecting creation as a possible explanation for origins is because it is not subject to the experimental method. At the same time, however, they consider it wholly unreasonable for creationists to place the same demand on evolution theory!
An example of evolution often taught to students is the change in populations of peppered moths in England from a predominantly light, speckled colored variety to a predominantly melanic, or dark colored variety, due to a progressive darkening of tree trunks on which the moths rest. This occurred as a result of the increase in pollution due to the industrial revolution. It has been characterized by evolutionists as the most astounding example of evolution ever seen by man. Of course, it is not evolution at all. The moths were peppered moths, Biston betularia, before the industrial revolution, and they all remain peppered moths, Biston betularia, today. The variations that are actually observable today, and which Darwin cited in this book as evidence for evolution, are changes within a species. No one has ever observed one basic kind of plant or animal naturally change into another basic kind.
Is evolution theory falsifiable? The theory has become so plastic that no matter what the data are, they can be made to fit the theory. More and more evolutionists are becoming aware of this flaw in modern evolution theorizing. For example, evolutionist Murray Eden, an MIT professor, has stated,
This cannot be done in evolution, taking it in its broad sense, and this is really all I meant when I called it tautologous in the first place. It can, indeed, explain anything. You may be ingenious or not in proposing a mechanism which looks plausible to human beings and mechanisms which are consistent with other mechanisms which you have discovered, but it is still an unfalsifiable theory. 3
Thus evolution, that is, the amoeba-to-man theory, cannot be observed and the theory is non-falsifiable. It thus fails to satisfy the criteria of a scientific theory. The same can be said of creation theory. We do not see God creating anything today, and as a theory, creation is non-falsifiable. Nevertheless, one or the other must be true. Furthermore, each can be used as a scientific model and discussed in scientific terms. We do have circumstantial evidence against which each theory can be compared — the fossil record, the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of probability, evidence of design and purpose, etc. After that is done then, the question can be asked, “Which model of origins, creation or evolution, do the data fit best?”
But, isn’t creation religion? Isn’t it true that the supernatural must be excluded from science? On the other hand, isn’t evolution, since it excludes the supernatural, at least qualified as a scientific model? It is true that in experimental, observational science in which we are investigating objects, events, and processes in the real world — how the sun produces its energy, the mechanics of the solar system, the cause and products of supernovae explosions, our biochemistry, physiology, etc. — we employ only natural laws and processes? This is the only way a scientist can operate when he seeks to observe and explain the operation of the present universe. The evolutionist, however, insists that we must not only use natural laws and processes to explain the operation of the universe and its living organisms, but that we must use those same natural laws and processes to explain the origin of the universe and the living organisms it contains. In doing so, he steps outside the limits of empirical, observational, testable science. He is insisting on the strict application of his worldview. Richard Lewontin, evolutionist and Harvard professor of biology, in his introduction to the anti-creationist book, Scientists Confront Creationism, states that,
Yet, whatever our understanding of the social struggle that gives rise to creationism, whatever the desire to reconcile science and religion may be, there is no escape from the fundamental contradiction between evolution and creationism. They are irreconcilable world views. 4
Thus, Lewontin states that evolution and creation are irreconcilable worldviews. One’s worldview involves one’s sense of reality — what lies beyond or prior to the physical universe — is there something supernatural or transcendental beyond the physical universe, or is there nothing? Is the possibility or conviction that a creator exists more religious than the belief that no creator exists? Both views are metaphysical, thus basically religious. This has been emphasized by Phillip Johnson, University of California professor of law, in his book, Darwin on Trial. 5
Evolutionist Douglas Futuyma states,
By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Together with Marx’s materialistic theory of history and society and Freud’s attribution of human behavior to influences over which we have little control, Darwin’s theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism — of much of science, in short — that has since been the stage of most Western thought. 6
In other words, the trilogy of Darwinian evolution — Marx’s materialistic theory of economic and political history, and Freudian psychology — is now the predominant mechanistic materialistic worldview in Western academia.
Michael Ruse, an evolutionist and a philosopher of science professor at Guelph University, was one of the main witnesses for evolution in the 1981 Arkansas federal trial concerning the constitutionality of the equal time law for creation and evolution passed by the Arkansas legislature (declared unconstitutional by Judge William Overton). At that time he argued strenuously that evolutionary theory was science free of any religious implications while creation theory was exclusively religious. This served as the main basis for Judge Overton’s decision. Twelve years later, Ruse was one of the speakers at the February 13, 1993, symposium on “The New Antievolutionism” of the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in Boston. His speech, revealing a very significant change in his previous position, stunned the audience. Contributing to this change was an exchange between evolutionists and creationists, involving, among others, Ruse and Phillip Johnson. Ruse made clear that he was still as much an evolutionist as ever. Concerning the exchange with Johnson and others, Ruse stated,
But we did talk much more about the whole question of metaphysics, the whole question of philosophical bases. And what Johnson was arguing was that, at a certain level, the kind of position of a person like myself, an evolutionist, is metaphysically based at some level, just as much as the kind of position of let us say somebody, some creationist, someone like Gish or somebody like that. And to a certain extent, I must confess, in the ten years since I performed, or I appeared, in the creationism trial in Arkansas, I must say that I’ve been coming to this kind of position myself. 7
Later he stated:
And certainly, there’s no doubt about it, that in the past, and I think also in the present, for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion.
He referred to examples from T. H. Huxley, Julian Huxley, and Edward O. Wilson. In his closing remark, Ruse stated,
But I am coming here and saying, I think that philosophically one should be sensitive to what I think history shows, namely, that . . . evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically. I guess we all knew that, but I think that we’re all much more sensitive to these facts now. And I think that the way to deal with creationism, but the way to deal with evolution also, is not to deny these facts, but to recognize them, and to see where we can go, as we move on from there.
Ruse should be commended for this forthright admission.
The religious nature of evolution had been made clear earlier by such proponents as Julian Huxley and Jacob Bronowski. They have said, for example:
A religion is essentially an attitude to the world as a whole. Thus evolution, for example, may prove as powerful a principle to coordinate man’s beliefs and hopes as God was in the past. 8
The Jesuit priest, Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, well known for his involvement with Piltdown Man (the latest research indicates he was not involved with the fraud) and Peking Man fossils, stated that,
Is evolution a theory, a system or a hypothesis? It is much more: it is a general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light illuminating all facts, a curve that all lines must follow. 9
Nothing could be more religious than this. But, you might say, Teilhard de Chardin was a priest, not a leading evolutionary scientist. But in his eulogy to Theodosius Dobzhansky, evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala stated that according to Dobzhansky the place of biological evolution in human thought was best expressed in the passage by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin quoted above. 10 George Gaylord Simpson, world-famous evolutionary paleontologist, also quoted favorably this statement by de Chardin. 11
Nevertheless, does the teaching of the non-theistic mechanistic theory of evolution constitute a challenge or threat to traditional theistic religious commitments? The Harvard professor, Richard Lewontin, certainly believes so. In his introduction to Scientists Confront Creationism (ref. 4), Lewontin states (p. xxv),
Suddenly the study of evolution was in all the schools. The culture of the dominant class had triumphed, and traditional religious values, the only vestige of control that rural people had over their own lives and the lives of their families, had been taken from them. 12
This is what occurred, according to Lewontin, following the widespread adoption of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study series of high school biology books, which are evolutionary throughout. Note particularly that Lewontin states that this constituted a triumph of the culture of the dominant class over traditional religious values of the rural people. When students are taught that everything in the universe was produced by a series of strictly mechanistic processes starting with the hydrogen and helium gases produced by a hypothetical big bang, this does encourage a belief in a no-God philosophy and set of values.
In conclusion, it can be stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory and thus evolutionary theory is no more scientific than creation theory. Furthermore, evolution theory is just as religious as creation theory. The teaching of the theory of evolution exclusively, as is being done in most of our tax-supported public schools in the United States, violates the separation of church and state and violates the academic freedom of teachers and students. It is recommended that all of the scientific evidence supporting each of these two opposing theories, devoid of references to, or use of, any religious literature, be presented in our tax-supported public schools in an unbiased manner, allowing the students to decide for themselves which model of origins, creation or evolution, do the data fit best. That would be good science and good education. This can be done fully in accord with the U.S. constitution, even according to leading evolutionists, as thoroughly documented in my book, Teaching Creation Science in Public Schools (see Bibliography). The truth is, evolutionists nearly completely dominate our educational system, the scientific establishment with its control of what is published in its journals, and the mass media with its control over what is published in our newspapers and magazines and what goes out over radio and television. It is extremely difficult for creation scientists to obtain a hearing for their position. The results are predictable. Thus, Stephen Jay Gould frankly admitted this when he said:
Many advantages accrue to the victors of any dispute, military or cerebral — and chronicling rights must rank among the greatest of perks. In short, the winners write history. How would we interpret the Trojan War if our main account had been written by Hector’s bard; and how would future generations view the history of evolutionary theory if Duane Gish and Henry Morris (our most vociferous modern creationists) cornered the market for written descriptions? 13
Summary of the Scientific Evidence
The Fossil Record
The fossil record constitutes some of the most important evidence concerning origins. It is the history of life written in the rocks. If evolution theory is true, the fossil record must be what this theory requires, and on the other hand, if creation is true, the fossil record must be in accord with that theory. Evolutionists Glenister and Witzke state that “The fossil record affords an opportunity to choose between evolutionary and creationist models for the origin of the earth and its life forms.” 14 Futuyma expresses a similar belief when he said,
Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in fully formed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence. . . 15
If evolution is true, then millions of species have evolved during hundreds of millions of years as each species developed from some preceding form and in turn gave rise to a succeeding form. Furthermore, evolutionary doctrine holds that evolution proceeds by the survival of the fittest, and the fittest are defined as those that reproduce in larger numbers. Thus, the population of each intermediate species would be considerably large and would exist for tens of thousands to several millions of years. As a result, enormous quantities of the transitional forms generated by evolution would have lived and died during that vast stretch of time. If evolution is true, our natural history museums should contain large quantities of undoubted transitional forms. The evidence for evolution should be obvious, even for the untrained eye to see.
On the other hand, if creation were true, we would expect to find a very different kind of record among the fossils. We would expect to observe that each basic kind of plant and animal, each basic morphological design, would appear fully formed with no series of transitional forms revealing an origin from some other basic type. Cats were always cats, dogs were always dogs, monkeys were always monkeys, and humans were always humans. We would expect to see variation within each kind — many varieties of finches, as Darwin noted in the Galapagos Islands. Nevertheless, as creation scientists point out, the finches are not only still birds, they are still finches, and interbreed with one another. To believe that finches, canaries, ducks, eagles, hummingbirds, etc., evolved from a common ancestor which evolved from a reptile requires a great leap of faith not documented by the fossil record.
From the very beginning, the fossil record contradicts evolution but presents the evidence predicted based on creation. Darwin was aware of the fact that the fossil record did not produce the evidence his theory predicted, but he hoped future generations would unearth the required evidence. This has not happened. Evolutionist Dr. David Raup, professor of geology at the University of Chicago, states,
The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwnian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would and, as a result, he devoted a long section of his Origin of Species to an attempt to explain and rationalize the differences. . . Darwin’s general solution to the incompatibility of fossil evidence and his theory was to say that the fossil record is a very incomplete one. . . Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated. . . 16
Earlier, evolutionist David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma, expressed the same view.
Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of “seeing” evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the present of “gaps” in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record. Darwin was concerned enough about this problem to devote a chapter of the “Origin” to it. He accounts for “the imperfections of the geological record” largely on the basis of the lack of continuous deposition of sediments and by erosion. Darwin also holds out the hope that some of the gaps would be filled as the result of subsequent collecting. But most of the gaps were still there a century later and some paleontologists were no longer willing to explain them away geologically. 17
As we will see, just as paleontological research during the 125 years between publication of Darwin’s book and these publications failed to alleviate Darwin’s problem with the fossil record, neither has paleontologists improved the situation in the two decades since publication of these reports.
The fossils of a vast array of complex invertebrates abruptly appear fully formed in the so-called Cambrian rocks. Evolutionists believed a few years ago that these Cambrian rocks began to form about 600 million years ago. Now geologists are telling us that these rocks began to form no more than 520 – 530 million years ago, and that the duration of what is called the Cambrian period was only about 5-10 million years rather than their earlier estimate of 80 million years. These fossils include those of clams, snails, trilobites, brachiopods, jellyfish, sponges, worms, etc. Billions times billions of fossils of these creatures are found in Cambrian rocks on every continent of the world. These animals supposedly evolved beginning with microscopic, single-celled creatures. Lying generally underneath the Cambrian rocks are what are called Precambrian rocks. Evolutionists believe Precambrian rocks were laid down during hundreds of millions of years preceding and leading up to the Cambrian Period. If evolution is true, these Precambrian rocks should contain billions times billions of fossils of the evolutionary ancestors of the complex invertebrates. Furthermore, we must find fossils of transitional forms linking these complex invertebrates to common ancestors. Many of the Precambrian rocks are undisturbed and perfectly suitable for the preservation of fossils. If the fossils were there, they would be found. There are now many reports in the scientific literature of the discovery of fossils of microscopic, soft-bodied, single-celled organisms, such as bacteria and algae, in Precambrian rocks. If fossils of such creatures can be found it is obvious that there would be no difficulty in finding fossils of the evolutionary ancestors and transitional forms leading up to the complex invertebrates whose fossils are found in Cambrian rocks. No one, however, has found fossilized ancestors for a single one of the Cambrian invertebrates, or transitional forms linking, say, sponges with jellyfish, brachiopods with clams, snails with trilobites, or any other possible linkages. Because of the vital importance of these facts, extensive documentation will be provided. The following references describe the many recent publications that discuss the pervasive, perplexing, and persistent problem for evolutionary theory due to the explosive appearance of a vast array of complex invertebrates in the fossil record with a total absence of ancestors and no trace of transitional forms between the various kinds of invertebrates. Richard Dawkins, the British biologist and evolutionist, states:
The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. 18
Yes, indeed! The sudden appearance of these creatures fully formed does delight creationists. It is precisely what is predicted based on creation. Douglas Futuyma, ardent anti-creationist, in his book on evolutionary biology, states:
It is considered likely that all the animal phyla became distinct before or during the Cambrian, for they all appear fully formed, without intermediates connecting one form to another. 19
Thus, Futuyma must confess that all the animal phyla (a phylum is the broadest category or taxon of plants and animals; for example, all vertebrates — fish, amphibia, reptiles, birds and mammals, including man — are placed in the phylum Chordata), or at least all the invertebrate phyla, have appeared in the fossil record with absolutely no evidence that they arose from preceding forms.
James W. Valentine, geologist-paleontologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, describes the problem this way:
Most authorities do agree that metazoan phyla more complex than flatworms have all (or perhaps nearly all) descended at least indirectly from flatworm-like stocks, since they all share many features. However, there is no agreement on the actual pathways of descent; nearly every remotely possible ancestral-descendant combination has been suggested by one or another worker. Again, the nature of forms intermediate between known groups will obviously have been different for one ancestor-descendant pair than for another.
The fossil record is of little use in providing direct evidence of the pathways of descent of the phyla or of invertebrate classes. Each phylum with a fossil record had already evolved its characteristic body plan when it first appeared, so far as we can tell from the fossil remains, and no phylum is connected to any other via intermediate fossil types. Indeed, none of the invertebrate classes can be connected with another class by series of intermediates. The relationships among phyla and classes must be inferred on the basis of their resemblance. However, even the most sophisticated techniques of phylogeny analysis have thus far failed to resolve the great differences of opinion concerning the relationships among phyla (or among many classes as well). 20
The many invertebrate phyla such as clams, snails, brachiopods, sea urchins, sponges, jellyfish, trilobites, etc., differ drastically from one another, yet evolutionists believe, as Valentine describes, that all of them have evolved from the same common ancestor — a flatworm-like creature! This is based purely on faith, of course, for as Valentine describes later in the same article, those creatures that developed skeletonized structures (those creatures with hard parts, such as clams, snails, trilobites, corals, etc.) did so independently and without leaving any traces of ancestors or transitional forms. He says:
Each of the phyla that developed durably skeletonized lineages during this period did so independently, suggesting that the opportunities for epifaunal life were open to a wide array of adaptive types. Furthermore, many of the durably skeletonized phyla appearing in Cambrian rocks are represented by a number of distinctrive subgroups, classes, or orders, that appear suddenly without known intermediates. 21
Taking into account the number of phyla, and the number of classes within each phylum that appear in Cambrian rocks, Valentine estimates that about 300 creatures with different major body plans and subplans are found in these rocks. Billions times billions of fossils of these creatures are entombed in the Cambrian rocks scattered on the face of the earth. These rocks, and the Precambrian rocks, should contain many billions of fossils of the vast number of intermediates that would have existed if evolution is true, yet not one has ever been found!
As more and more discoveries are made, evolutionists are getting squeezed increasingly. They used to date the beginning of the Cambrian period at about 600 million years, and assumed that its duration was about 80 million years. Now they are assigning a date of about 530 million years, and possibly as recently as 520 million years, for its beginning, and are being forced to squeeze the origin of the vast array of complex invertebrates into a time span which they believe may encompass no more than ten million years and most likely only five million years. Five million years is just a blink of time on their evolutionary time scale. After all, they believe that single-celled organisms existed on the earth for three billion years before these Cambrian animals emerged from nowhere.
One of the most thorough discussions of all aspects of the “Cambrian explosion” and its attendant “mysteries” is found in Chapter 1, “Origin and Early Radiation of the Metazoa,” authored by paleontologists Philip Signor and Jere Lipps in the book edited by the same authors. 22 They begin their account with the statement:
The complex of historical events encompassing the origin and early evolution of Metazoa is at once the salient feature and the most unresolved bio-historical phenomenon in the history of life. It has been the single most perplexing issue since paleontology emerged as a scientific discipline in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
They report that:
The sudden appearance of diverse metazoan skeletal fossils heralds the beginning of the Phanerozoic [the Phanerozoic Age includes all of the fossil record from the Cambrian to the present] . . . there is little evidence that the capacity to form skeletons was acquired gradually or over a prolonged period. . . . A wide variety of skeleton types and most of the major marine invertebrate clades appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . The ecological diversification of animals is equally dramatic. A wide variety of habitats were occupied by these biotas, from shallow to deep benthos and to the pelagic realm (pp. 7, 8).
Stefan Bengtson, a Swedish paleontologist, describes the situation in the following way:
If any event in life’s history resembles man’s creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukariotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants. 23
Yes, indeed, this sudden appearance of complex invertebrates “out of the Precambrian mist” without a trace of ancestors or transitional forms is still baffling and embarrassing to evolutionists today, just as it was to Darwin, because 135 years after Darwin evolutionists are no nearer to a solution of the “mystery” than was Darwin. Bengtson tells us that “If any event in life’s history resembles man’s creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life. . . .” Again, we say, yes, indeed! The explosion of complex living organisms found in the fossil record is precisely what is and must be predicted based on creation. The myth is not creation. They myth is the theory of evolution, a myth invented to explain our origin without God.
These facts essentially destroy the theory of evolution. The notion that this vast array of complex invertebrates could have evolved during millions of years without leaving a trace of this incredible transition in the fossil record defies any credible explanation. All attempts to appeal to geological, climatic, atmospheric, and chemical explanations for this sudden and dramatic appearance of the complex invertebrates fail miserably. In spite of this irrefutable evidence, if one chooses to believe that evolution is true and all of these complex creatures evolved without leaving evidence, that is his choice, but that person must admit that he believes in evolution not because of the scientific evidence but in spite of the evidence. On the other hand, the evidence described above is powerful, positive evidence for creation. It is precisely what one would expect to find if creation is true.
The origin of the vertebrates is equally sudden and dramatic. Evolutionists believe fishes were the first vertebrates. We have billions times billions of fossils of the complex invertebrates. There are untold billions of fossils of the various kinds of fishes entombed in rocks all around the world. If evolution is true and some invertebrate or invertebrates evolved into fishes during a hundred million years or so, billions times billions of transitional forms should have lived and died during that vast stretch of time. Our natural history museums should have many thousands of fossils of these transitional forms showing which invertebrate evolved into fishes and the pathway of that remarkable evolutionary transition. None have been found.
Errol White, an evolutionist and expert on fishes, in his presidential address on lungfishes to the Linnean Society of London, said:
But whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing. . . . 24
In his discussion concerning the origin of bony fishes, Todd makes the following remark:
All three subdivisions of the bony fishes appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. They are already widely divergent morphologically, and they are heavily armored. How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have heavy armor? And why is there no trace of earlier intermediate forms? 25
Todd attempts to describe a scenario for this sudden appearance, fully formed, of these major kinds of fishes, but it is only that — a scenario. The fact remains, they all appear fully formed.
Arthur Strahler has published an anti-creationist book. In this book, he critiques two of my earlier books on the fossil record. The latest edition, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! (see Bibliography), was published subsequent to his book. In his discussion of the origin of fishes, Strahler says, “Origin of the vertebrates is obscure — there is no fossil record preceding the occurrence of fishes in the late Ordovician time.” 26 This is what he has to say concerning ancestors and transitional forms for fishes:
Duane Gish finds from reading Alfred S. Romer’s 1966 treatise, Vertebrate Paleontology, that mainstream paleontologists have found no fossil record of transitional chordates leading up to the appearance of the first class of fishes, the Agnatha, or of transitional forms between the primitive, jawless agnaths and the jaw-bearing class Placodermi, or of transition from the placoderms (which were poorly structured for swimming) to the class Chondrichthyes, or from those cartilaginousskeleton sharklike fishes to the class Osteicthyes, or bony fishes (1978a, pp. 66–70; 1985, pp. 65–69). The evolution of these classes is shown in Figure 43.1. Neither, says Gish, is there any record of transitional forms leading to the rise of the lungfishes and the crossopterygians from the lobefinned bony fishes, an evolutionary step that is supposed to have led to the rise of amphibians and ultimately to the conquest of the lands by airbreathing vertebrates.
In a series of quotations from Romer (1966), Gish finds all the confessions he needs from the evolutionists that each of these classes appears suddenly and with no trace of ancestors. The absence of the transitional fossils in the gaps between each group of fishes and its ancestor is repeated in standard treatises on vertebrate evolution. Even Christ McGowan’s 1984 anticreationist work, purporting to show “why the creationists are wrong,” makes no mention of Gish’s four pages of text on the origin of the fish classes. Knowing that McGowan is an authority on vertebrate paleontology, keen on faulting the creationists at every opportunity, I must assume that I haven’t missed anything important in this area. This is one count in the creationists’ charge that can only evoke in unison from the paleontologists a plea of nolo contendere (p. 408).
Nolo contendere is, of course, a guilty plea by a defendant who must admit that he has no defense.
The fossil record has thus not produced ancestors or transitional forms for the major fish classes. Such hypothetical ancestors and the required transitional forms must, based on the known record, be merely the products of speculation. How then can it be argued that the explanation offered by the evolution model to explain such evidence is more scientific than that of the creation model? In fact, the evidence required by evolution theory cannot be found. The evidence, on the other hand, is precisely what would be expected if creation is true.
As far as the evidence is concerned, the matter is settled. Evolution of living organisms did not take place on this planet. Endless arguments are generated by the question, Is Archaeopteryx a transitional form between reptiles and birds or not? or by the question, Is one of the australopithecines transitional between apes and humans or is it not? Even evolutionists argue among themselves on questions such as these. In the case of the origin of the Cambrian complex invertebrates and the origin of fishes, the evidence is crystal clear. There is not a shred of evidence to support the notion that these creatures evolved. On the other hand, the abrupt appearance, fully formed, of all of these creatures is exactly the evidence demanded by creation.
The remainder of the fossil record provides powerful support for creation. Each basic type of plant and animal is set apart with no series of transitional forms linking it to another basic type. Even though the following quotes from the publications of George Gaylord Simpson are now more than 50 years old, they still describe eloquently the present situation. In a section entitled “Major Systematic Discontinuities of Record” in one of his books he states that nowhere in the world is there any trace of a fossil that would close the considerable gap between Hyrocotherium, supposedly the first “horse,” and its suggested ancestral order Condylarthra. He then goes on to say:
This is true of all thirty-two orders of mammals. . . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed. 27
Later on (p. 107), Simpson states:
This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.
Take flying animals, for example. No one has found a trace of an ancestor or transitional forms for the flying reptiles, now extinct. Each one appears fully formed. Evolutionist Robert Bakker states:
Reconstructing the ancestry of a clan like the pterodactyls remains an especially difficult challenge. Flying dragons seem to burst into the world like Athena from the mind of Zeus, fully formed. Even the earliest skeletons of pterodactyls already display fully developed wings and the specialized torso and hips so characteristic of the entire order. . . . As of today, no fossils have been discovered to show how the pterodactyl’s forelimbs became transformed into wings. 28
Supposedly millions of years passed during which some land animal gradually evolved into these amazing flying creatures, but not a single transitional form has been found!
What about the marine reptiles? These were creatures that were thoroughly reptilian, yet they lived in the sea, most employing paddles for swimming. Supposedly, feet and legs gradually evolved into paddles. The Ichthyosaur, quite different, externally was very fishlike in appearance. If evolution were true, surely the fossil record would produce at least a few transitional forms showing some land reptile gradually evolving into this remarkable creature. However, Colbert and Morales state:
The ichthyosaurs, in many respects the most highly specialized of the marine reptiles, appeared in early Triassic times. Their advent into the geologic history of the reptiles was sudden and dramatic; there are no clues in pre-Triassic sediments as to the possible ancestors of the ichthyosaurs. 29
The abrupt appearance of these creatures without a trace of transitional forms is again powerful positive evidence for creation.
The origin of other flying animals in addition to the pterodactyls is further evidence for creation. Fossils of the flying mammals, or bats, appear abruptly in the fossil record, essentially identical to modern day bats, including possession of the sonar system found in many modern bats. There are no traces of ancestors or transitional forms. The flying insects appear in the fossil record without a single transitional form to suggest that something on a non-flying insect evolved into wings. James Marden has recorded the fact that
Certain modern species are reasonably similar to fossils of winged insects dating back 325 million years. The problem is, wings appear in the fossil record already fully formed.
So miraculous a thing is insect flight that nearly all insect biologists believe it could have evolved only once. 30
According to evolutionists, evolution is not a miraculous process but totally naturalistic, but apparently there must be many exceptions, and miracles can be invoked when necessary to save their theory.
Archaeopteryx is the fossil bird that is the favorite of evolutionists who claim that there are some examples of transitional forms. It is claimed that Archaeopteryx existed about 140 million years ago and had features suggesting it was intermediate between birds and reptiles. There is no question that Archaeopteryx was a flying bird. It had the form and pattern of the avian wing, its feathers were identical to those of modern flying birds, it had perching feet, a bird-like skull, and the furcula, or wishbone, of modern birds. Whatever features it had, whether one wishes to call them bird-like or reptile-like, they were completely formed, not in a state of transition. Ornithologist Alan Feduccia states:
Archaeopteryx probably cannot tell us much about the early origins of feathers and flight in true protobirds because Archaeopteryx was, in a modern sense, a bird. 31
It has been a claimed that feathers developed from frayed-out scales of reptiles. This is a notion that is directly contradicted by the scientific evidence. The structure and development of feathers are completely different from reptilian scales. Bush states:
It has been a truism for most of this century that feathers are related to reptilian scales. But, the molecular evidence questions the simple, direct relation of the specialized structure of the birds to reptile scales. I will provide arguments to show that reptile scales and feathers are related only by the fact that their origin is in epidermal tissue. Every feature from gene structure and organization to development, morphogenesis, and tissue organization is different. 32
Feathers appear suddenly in the fossil record, Bush observes.
A frequent claim by evolutionists is that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Feduccia and ornithologist Larry Martin, head of vertebrate paleontology at University of Kansas, reject this notion. Martin says:
The theory linking dinosaurs to birds is a pleasant fantasy that some scientists like because it provides a direct entry into a past that we otherwise can only guess about. But unless more convincing evidence is uncovered, we must reject it and move forward to the next better idea. 33
The origin of flight in flying insects, flying reptiles, flying mammals, and birds is a remarkable testimony to the fact of creation. The remainder of the fossil record is similarly solid evidence for creation. Evolutionists are forced to substitute scenarios in place of the required transitional forms. On the other hand, the systematic absence of transitional forms, added to the undoubted total absence of ancestors and transitional forms for the complex invertebrates and fishes, is the evidence expected on the basis of creation.
Concerning the origin of man, we are regularly exposed to sensationalized reports concerning discovery, usually very fragmentary, of fossils that supposedly, in some way, link modern man, Homo sapiens, to ape-like ancestors. While there is a general consensus, of course, among evolutionists that man has evolved from ape-like ancestors, the course of that evolution and the fossils involved are most often disputed among evolutionists. For example, while it is the general consensus among evolutionists that the australopithecines, such as Australopithecus afarensis (with Donald Johanson’s “Lucy” as the most prominent fossil) were ancestral to creatures that gave rise to humans, there are some that disagree. 34 The australopithecines have been the central figures in human evolutionary schemes for many years, and if they are not human ancestors, as Charles Oxnard and some others maintain, the human family tree is very bare indeed.
As we consider these claims, we should bear in mind the sad track record of evolutionists in regard to the origin of man. For many years, based on a few pieces of the jaw and a few teeth, such prominent paleoanthropologists as David Pilbeam and Elwin Simons claimed that Ramapithecus walked upright and was an intermediate between ape and man. Now that considerably more fossil material of this creature has been found, it is now conceded that Ramapithecus was not ancestral to man but was essentially the same as an orangutan. For nearly half a century Piltdown Man (Eanthropus dawsonii) was, according to the consensus of the world’s greatest authorities, a subhuman ancestor of man. In 1950, it was shown to be a fraud. Someone had taken the jawbone of a modern ape, a few teeth, and a human skull, treated them with chemicals to make them look old, altered the teeth to make them look man-like, planted the bones in a gravel deposit near Piltdown, Sussex, England, and fooled the world’s greatest paleoanthropologists. And it is amazing how many ape-like features those experts could see in the human skull and how many human-like features those experts could see in the modern ape’s jaw. Nebraska Man, based on a single tooth found in Nebraska in 1922, was claimed to be either a man-like ape or an ape-like man. In December 1922, the Illustrated London News, based on the description of the scientists, published a picture of Nebraska Man, his wife, and the tools they were using — all based on a single tooth! A few years later the find of additional material revealed that Nebraska Man was a pig. For many years, it was claimed that the Neanderthal people were primitive subhuman ancestors of man. It is now generally agreed that these people were fully human, Homo sapiens, suffering from such pathological conditions as arthritis and rickets. No wonder evolutionist anatomist Lord Zuckerman declared that he did not think there was any science in this field at all. He further declared that if man had descended from an ape-like creature there was no evidence for this in the fossil record. A much more detailed discussion of the origin of man and of the fossil record in general is found in my book, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! I agree with Lord Zuckerman — if man has evolved from ape-like ancestors, there is no evidence for this in the fossil record. Human evolution schemes are based on a very scanty fossil record, enormous faith in evolution theory, and opportunities to gain instant fame.
In some of my publications, I have related the fact that Eugene Dubois, the Dutch physician who discovered a skull cap and femur that he named Pithecanthropus erectus (“erect apeman”), had at about the same time discovered two modern human skulls, but he had concealed this fact for about 30 years. He apparently thought that this discovery would place his claims concerning Pithecanthropus in jeopardy. It has been claimed that I was wrong and that Dubois had revealed this fact at about the same time that he published his material on Pithecanthropus. Williams Howells, a well-known evolutionary anthropologist then at the University of Wisconsin, states in his book Mankind So Far (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1946), on page 191:
Having left the bountiful caves of Europe, we shall have to be content with very scanty remains from the rest of the world. There is, indeed, only one more general type on the list. For its first representative we turn still again to Java and to Dr. Dubois. When this remarkable man returned in the 1890s he had, along with Pithecanthropus, two other skulls which he kept entirely secret until 1920, for reasons which he never chose to explain. Perhaps, as Keith said, it was good judgment, for they were so different that to hand them out along with the Java Man would have overtaxed the resilience of the anthropologists, like the chameleon who was put on a Scotch plaid. The skulls, male and female, were from Wadjak; they were large of size and large of brain, and entirely sapiens in their features; and with little doubt their date corresponds with the Upper Paleolithic of Europe.
Thus, both Howells and Sir Arthur Keith, famous British evolutionist anthropologist, claimed that Dubois had concealed that evidence. If Dubois had published the evidence in scientific journals, neither one of these scientist were aware of it. I have asked my accusers several times if they know of such a scientific publication to please give me the reference so that I and their fellow evolutionists would be so informed. So far none have done so. It has been asserted that Dubois reported these finds in his publications but so far no one has given a single reference to a scientific publication by Dubois where this information can be found. Furthermore, if Dubois did publish this information in a scientific journal, it is strange that neither Howells nor Keith was aware of it. If Dubois did publish these facts somewhere, he at least failed to report them to the world of anthropology.
Evolution, Creation and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
One of the popular notions today about the origin of the universe is the so-called Big Bang theory, or variations of it, including the inflation theory. According to this theory, billions of years ago all the energy and matter in the universe was crammed into a cosmic egg or perhaps a primeval atom. Nobody knows where it came from or how it got there. It suddenly exploded or expanded at an unbelievable speed. Out of this hypothetical primordial explosion and chaos essentially only two elements were created: hydrogen (75%) and helium (25%). These simple gases expanded until almost a perfect vacuum existed at a very low temperature. From these simple gases it is believed everything in the universe has evolved — stars, galaxies, our solar system, all living things, including man with 30 trillion cells of about 200 different kinds, and a brain with 12 billion brain cells and 120 trillion connections. Thus, according to evolutionists, the universe began in a state of chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and the simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases, which then transformed itself into the incredibly complex universe, including living organisms, which we have today. If this is true, matter must have an intrinsic ability to transform itself from disorder to order, from simple to complex. Scientists should have observed this fact and incorporated it into a natural law. On the other hand, if creation were true, it would not be expected that matter would have such a natural ability. Creation is finished. If anything has happened since creation to change the original created state, it could only cause matter to go downward, to deteriorate, to go from order to disorder. Thus, these two theories postulate diametrically opposed observations. What do we observe out there in the real world?
There is a general natural tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder, reflecting dissipation of energy available for future transformations — the law of increasing entropy. 35
All real processes go with an increase of entropy. The entropy also measures the randomness, or lack of orderliness of the system: the greater the randomness, the greater the entropy. 36
Another way of stating the second law then is: “The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!” Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself — and that is what the second law is all about. 37
Now compare these definitions or consequences of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the theory of evolution as defined by Huxley:
Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution — a single process of self-transformation. 38
There is a natural tendency for all observed natural systems to go from order to disorder, towards increasing randomness. This is true throughout the entire known universe, both at the micro and macro levels. This tendency is so invariant that it has never been observed to fail. It is a natural law — the Second Law of Thermodynamics. On the other hand, according to the general theory of evolution, as defined by Huxley, there is a general tendency of natural systems to go from disorder to order, towards an ever higher and higher level of complexity. This tendency supposedly operates in every corner of the universe, both at the micro and macro levels. As a consequence, it is believed, particles have evolved into people.
It is difficult to understand how anyone, scientifically trained or not, could fail to see the glaring contradiction between the evolutionary theory of the origin of the universe and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, one of the most well-established natural laws known in science. The usual, but exceedingly naïve, answer given by evolutionists to this dilemma is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. If the system is open to an external source of energy, it is asserted, complexity can be generated and maintained with this system at the expense of the energy supplied to it from the outside.
First of all, evolutionists believe the universe is an isolated system. No one outside did any work on it and no matter or energy was brought in from the outside. Everything which took place within it and which is now taking place occurred and is occurring by a process of self-transformation. The Second Law states that the order, organization, and complexity of an isolated system can never increase, but can only run down and deteriorate with time. There are no exceptions. Yet, evolutionists believe the universe is an isolated system that began in a state of chaos and disorder and the simplicity of hydrogen gas and transformed itself into the exceedingly complex universe we have today. This is a clear violation of the Second Law. If science is science and natural laws are natural laws, the universe could not have created itself naturally. The only alternative is that it had to be created by an outside, thus supernatural, agency.
Nevertheless, some might claim, while this may be true of the universe, it does not apply to evolution of life on the earth.
Our solar system is an open system, and energy is supplied to the earth from the sun. The decrease in entropy, or increase in order, on the earth during the evolutionary process, it is said, has been more than compensated by the increase in entropy, or decrease in order, on the sun. The overall result has been a net decrease in order, so the Second Law of Thermodynamics has not been violated, we are told.
An open system and an adequate external source of energy are necessary but not sufficient conditions, however, for order to be generated and maintained, since raw undirected, uncontrolled energy is destructive, not constructive. For example, without the protective layer of ozone in the upper atmosphere that absorbs most of the ultraviolet light coming from the sun, life on earth would be impossible. Bacterial cells exposed to such radiation die within seconds. This is because ultraviolet light, or irradiation of any kind, breaks chemical bonds and thus randomizes and destroys the highly complex structures found in biologically active macromolecules, such as proteins and DNA. Biological activity of these vitally important molecules is destroyed and death rapidly follows.
That much more than merely an external energy source is required to form complex molecules and systems from simpler ones is evident from the following statement by Simpson and Beck: “. . . the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed.” 39
Thus, a green plant, utilizing the highly complex photosynthetic system it possesses, can trap light energy from the sun and convert this light energy into chemical energy. A series of other complex systems within the green plant allows the utilization of this energy to build up complex molecules and systems from simple starting material. Of equal importance is the fact that the green plant possesses a system for directing, maintaining, and replicating these complex energy conversion mechanisms — an incredibly complex genetic system. Without the genetic system, no specifications on how to proceed would exist, chaos would result, and life would be impossible.
For complexity to be generated within a system, then, four conditions must be met:
- The system must be an open system.
- An adequate external energy source must be available.
- The system must possess energy conversion mechanisms.
- A control mechanism must exist within the system for directing, maintaining, and replicating these energy conversion mechanisms.
The seemingly irresolvable dilemma, from an evolutionary point of view, is how such complex energy conversion mechanisms and genetic systems arose in the absence of such systems, when there is a general natural tendency to go from order to disorder, a tendency so universal it can be stated as a natural law, the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Simply stated, machines are required to build machines, and something or somebody must operate the machinery.
The creationist thus opposes the wholly unscientific evolutionary hypothesis that the natural universe with all of its incredible complexity, was capable of generating itself, and maintains that there must exist, external to the natural universe, a Creator, or supernatural Agent, who was responsible for introducing or creating the high degree of order found within this natural universe. While creationism is extra-scientific, it is not anti-scientific, as is the evolutionary hypothesis that contradicts one of the most well established laws of science.
The Origin of Life
Through an elegant series of experiments spanning two centuries, Spellanzani, Redi, Louis Pasteur and others disproved the notion of the spontaneous origin of life. As a result, the Law of Biogenesis, that life comes only from preexisting life, became part of the fabric of biology. With the rise of Darwinism, however, this demonstrated truth no longer became acceptable, and the notion of the spontaneous origin of life was resurrected. Although evolutionists are still light-years short of any comprehensive theory on how life may have arisen spontaneously, our students are told that the spontaneous origin of life on earth was almost inevitable. There are in fact a series of impassable barriers to a spontaneous evolutionary origin of life. A few of these are:
- The absolute necessity for the exclusion of a significant quantity of oxygen from the hypothetical primordial atmosphere. If oxygen were present, all organic molecules would be oxidized to simple gases. The present atmosphere contains 21% oxygen, and evidence is accumulating that the earth has never had an atmosphere significantly different than it has at present. Furthermore, without oxygen there would be no ozone layer around the earth to absorb the highly energetic, deadly destructive ultraviolet light from the sun. No life can exist in the presence of this ultraviolet light, and yet evolutionists persist in believing that life arose in its presence.
- The rates of destruction of all organic molecules, such as amino acids, sugars, purines and pyrimidines, etc., vastly exceed their rates of formation by raw, uncontrolled energy such as ultraviolet light and electrical discharges. Thus, no significant quantity of such products could ever form under plausible primitive earth conditions. The only reason Stanley Miller obtained a detectable quantity of a few amino acids in his famous experiment 40 was that he employed a trap to continuously remove the products. This prevented the re-exposure of these products to the energy source that produced them. No plausible natural trap under primitive earth conditions has yet been conceived, however. Even if such a trap could exist, this in itself would be fatal to origin of life theories since no energy would be available and all subsequent steps in the origin of life would require energy.
- No method exists for producing in their natural state the large macromolecules, such as proteins, DNA, and RNA, under plausible primitive earth conditions. There exists an impassable thermodynamic barrier to the spontaneous formation of such substances. It would be comparable to a newborn baby climbing the sheer 3,000-foot granite cliff of El Capitan in Yosemite Valley. Only living things possess the metabolic machinery necessary to overcome this thermodynamic barrier.
- The formation of a single biologically active protein, DNA or RNA molecule requires the precise positioning of hundreds of sub-units, just as the 176 letters of this sentence had to be arranged in precise sequence. A protein of 100 amino acids is a rather small protein (the average protein contains 400 amino acids), and yet the probability of forming a single protein molecule of 100 of the 20 different amino acids arranged in precise order is approximately 10 – 130 (that is, one chance out of the number one followed by 130 zeros). This probability is essentially equal to zero on a time scale of five billion years (the assumed age of the earth), and even if it did happen, only one single molecule of one single protein would be produced. The oceans of the world contain about 350 million cubic miles of water, so billions of tons each of hundreds of different protein, DNA, and RNA molecules required to start life would have to be produced. This is flatly impossible.
- The most primitive living cell imaginable would not only require hundreds of different protein molecules and hundreds of different kinds of DNA and RNA molecules but many other kinds of large and complex molecules such as carbohydrates and lipids. Furthermore, the simplest living cell known to science contains many complex elements, such as the cell membrane, ribosomes, the energy-generating system, etc. Finally, all of these must be precisely arranged so that the activities of the cell are properly coordinated in time and space. The purpose of every detail of the structure and function of the cell is evident. Thus, even the most primitive cell imaginable would be incredibly complex. Could such a complex apparatus arise by chance, even ignoring all of the thermodynamic barriers to the formation of complex molecules and structures? The answer is a resounding NO!
A few years ago Sir Fred Hoyle and Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy, University College, Cardiff, Wales, became interested in the problem of the origin of life. Both had been evolutionists and lifelong atheists. After making certain assumptions about the requirements for the origin of the simplest cell imaginable, they calculated the probability of the necessary protein enzymes arising by chance on this planet in five billion years. The probability turned out to be one chance out of the number one followed by 40,000 zeros! 41 This is flatly zero, so they calculated the probability of life evolving anywhere in the universe, assuming that every star in the universe (about 100 billion times 100 billion) has a planet like the earth and that the universe is 20 billion years old. For all practical purposes, according to their results the probability is not insensibly different than zero. Sir Fred Hoyle said that the probability of the evolutionary origin of life is equal to the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard would assemble a Boeing 747! One is free to believe that, of course, but it should not be called science. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are now saying that wherever life exists in the universe it had to be created. Wickramasinghe has stated that this evidence constitutes empirical evidence for the existence of God (they are not biblical creationists, since neither believes the Genesis account of creation, but they believe life had to be created).
Did Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Wickramasinghe become creationists because of their religion? Obviously not, for they were both atheists when they began their study. They became creationists in spite of the religious beliefs they held at that time. Most evolutionists assert that to hold a belief in creation is religion. According to this view, then, when Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, in ignorance of the facts, held to an evolutionary view of the origin of life, that was proper science; but the moment the scientific evidence convinced them that life could not have arisen naturally, therefore life had to be created supernaturally, their views instantly ceased to be science and became religion!
Other scientists, such as Yockey, 42 Salisbury, 43 Coppedge, 44 and Wilder-Smith 45 have come to similar conclusions or have expressed serious doubts. A spontaneous evolutionary origin of life can be positively excluded based on the proven principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics and the laws of probability. The theory of an evolutionary origin of life is Twentieth Century mythology.
The Evidence from Embryology
The notion that an organism recapitulates its evolutionary history during development of the embryo became so thoroughly entrenched in evolutionary thought that it became known as the “biogenetic law.” It is still being claimed, for example, that the human embryo at one stage of its development has gill slits, demonstrating the fact that a fish was a distant ancestor of man. At no time in its development, however, does a human embryo ever have slits into the throat nor does a human embryo ever have gills. If a human embryo never has gills and never has slits, it is certain it never has gill slits. The human embryo has a series of pharyngeal pouches, or a series of bars and grooves, in the neck region that resemble structures in the neck region of the fish. That these resemblances are merely superficial, however, is shown by the fact that in the human embryo the so-called “gill-slits” do not develop into respiratory organs but develop into the lower jaw, structures in the middle ear, and several glands. Furthermore, recently an instrument called a fetoscope has been developed by which the development of the human embryo can be observed and photographed. This has shown that every stage in the development of the human embryo, just as predicted based on creation, is uniquely human. 46 The development of the human embryo thus reveals no evidence for evolution but provides empirical support for creation.
Although the idea of embryological recapitulation is still being taught in many biology textbooks and classrooms, it is a thoroughly discredited theory, as many evolutionists acknowledge and embryologists recognize. Ernst Haeckel, a fervent evolutionist who widely promoted the so-called “biogenetic law,” published alleged pictures of embryos that supposedly revealed how similar the embryos of various creatures, including man, were during development. This was a blatant fraud. His drawings were not true representatives of the embryos at all, but drawn to make them appear similar. The extent of this fraud has been exposed once again by Michael Richardson in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy and Embryology (see Elizabeth Pennisi, Science, 277 (September 5, 1997): 1435). Haeckel’s alleged evidence for embryological recapitulation has been reproduced in countless biology books and is still found in some today. Embryos do not recapitulate anything. They just do what is necessary to convert a single fertilized egg cell into the infant individual.
The Evidence from Vestigial Organs
A vestigial organ has been defined as an organ found in a present-day organism that has no function but which was a useful, functional organ in an evolutionary ancestor. About a century ago, Wiederscheim listed about 180 vestigial organs for man. These included the appendix, tonsils, coccyx (the tailbone), pituitary gland, pineal gland, and the thymus gland. The results of scientific and medical research have now reduced that list practically to zero as the true function of these organs has been discovered. All of the above-mentioned organs, for example, are now known to have important functions. In an article published recently in Evolutionary Theory, evolutionist S.R. Scadding states his conviction that “‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.” 47 Again, a prediction based on evolutionary theory has been falsified and the prediction of creation scientists that the true function of these organs would eventually be discovered has been verified.
The Evidence from Molecular Biology
The amino acid sequences of many proteins have been determined. These proteins include enzymes, electron-transmitters, oxygen-carriers, and hormones. It has been found that in many cases proteins that have the same function in different animals, such as the cytochromes or the hemoglobins, have a very similar amino acid sequence in different organisms. Those proteins, such as the cytochromes, which have a similar amino acid sequence, are said to be homologous. Furthermore, it has been generally determined that those homologous proteins found in creatures which closely resemble each other differ less from one another than those homologous proteins found in creatures that do not closely resemble one another. Thus, the cytochrome C found in man is more similar to those found in the apes than it is to that found in a rat or a snake. Evolutionists have eagerly seized upon this evidence as “proof” of evolution.
We must first point out that this sort of evidence is of no help whatsoever in weighing the credibility of creation versus the credibility of evolution. This similarity in the biochemistry of all living things must be true, regardless of the explanation for their origins. Let us suppose, for example, that plants, animals, and humans were each created with different types of amino acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc. What would we eat? We could eat neither plants nor animals, since we could not utilize the amino acids, sugars, and other substances found in these organisms. The only thing we could eat would be each other! That would obviously be an impossible solution. Thus, animals, plants and humans had to have the same amino acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc. This fact would then determine that the biochemistry of all plants, animals and man had to be similar, since the biochemical machinery of each had to be designed to metabolize the same substances. This fact was recognized by (then evolutionist) Kenyon and evolutionist Steinman when they stated that:
It could be argued that the universality of much of biochemistry is merely consistent with the concept of a common ancestral population but does not in any sense prove it since the same basic reaction patterns may be required for life. 48
Furthermore, since our external morphology is at least to some extent shaped by our internal chemistry, we would expect that creatures that more closely resemble one another would have biochemistries that are more similar than those in creatures that do not closely resemble one another. Thus, the predictions concerning molecular homology based on creation and evolution would be substantially the same.
The evidence from molecular biology has, however, produced some serious difficulties for evolutionary theory, and as more and more data on molecular structures have become known, the more serious the difficulties have become. According to evolutionary theory, evolution is a mechanistic process which should produce data that is consistent with a mechanistic theory. If data appear that are inconsistent or contradictory to those predicted by the theory, the theory is weakened. If a sufficient body of such contradictory evidence accumulates, then the theory is seriously jeopardized. That situation is being approached with evolutionary theory relative to predictions concerning molecular biology as more and more predictions concerning evolution and molecular structures are being falsified. Space permits us to describe only a few.
The insulins of the sperm whale and of the fin whale are identical to those of the dog and the pig but differ from that of the sei whale. 49
There are 18 differences when the amino acid sequence of guinea pig insulin is compared to either human insulin or to the insulin from a fellow rodent, the rat. 50 The structure of cytochrome C of the rattlesnake varies in 22 places compared to the cytochrome C of the turtle, another reptile, but only in 14 places when compared to human insulin. 51 When the cytochromes C of two supposedly closely related organisms, Desulfovibrio desulfuricans and Desulfovibrio vulgaris, are compared, it is found that they differ markedly in amino acid composition. 52 The amino acid sequence of lysozyme of Emden goose egg white is not homologous at all (or doubtfully very weakly so) with lysozyme of hen egg white. 53
According to evolutionary theory, mammals are more closely related to reptiles than to amphibians. However, mammalian luteinizing hormone releasing hormone is identical to that of amphibians but differs from that of reptiles. 54
Based on his research findings, evolutionist Dr. Christian Schwabe is suggesting a drastic revision of evolutionary theory. From the results of his molecular studies of hormones, Schwabe contends that the theory that all life forms are related through common ancestry does not appear to be true. 55 Schwabe contends that these data supports the fact that each basic type had a separate origin (this theory is called polyphyletic evolution). Schwabe is thus saying exactly what creationists have been saying all along — that all creatures have not shared a common ancestry but that there was a multitude of separate and distinct origins. Schwabe and creation scientists differ, of course, as to how each separate type originated in the first place. Nevertheless, if Schwabe and the creation scientists are correct in their contention that the data of molecular biology supports multiple origins rather than descent from a common ancestor, then evolutionists are deprived of what they consider to be one of their strongest arguments for evolution. It is of great significance that the data are now sufficiently strong to swing an evolutionist of Dr. Schwabe’s very considerable knowledge and research experience over to the views of creation scientists against a common ancestry of organisms.
Michael Denton holds an M.D. degree and a Ph.D. in molecular biology from British universities. He is neither a Christian nor a professing creationist, but his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, is a devastating critique of evolutionary theory. On every count, according to Denton, evolution strikes out. According to Denton, molecular biology, rather than supporting evolution, provides evidence directly contradictory to the evidence predicted. Denton points out that protein sequence data reveals the same large systematic gaps between basically different kinds that are also evident from the fossil record. With reference to the so-called evolutionary molecular clock based on protein sequence data, Denton states:
Despite the fact that no convincing explanation of how random evolutionary processes could have resulted in such an ordered pattern of diversity, the idea of uniform rates of evolution is presented in the literature as if it were an empirical discovery. The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful, that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth-century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists. 56
Many other investigators have pointed out the essential futility of attempts to use data from protein sequences, DNA, and RNA to establish evolutionary relationships. For example (and there are many), Weishampel, Dodson, and Osmolska state:
Molecular data on tetrapod phylogeny are equivocal regarding the relationships of birds and crocodilians. Some analyses do pair these two groups, but many tend to link birds and mammals more closely. However, other protein sequence analyses give every other imaginable pairing of tetrapod groups and their significance is debatable. 57
In spite of all the claims that have been made by evolutionists for the utility of protein sequence analyses in establishing evolutionary relationships, it is obvious that if such data can be so interpreted by various scientists to establish every imaginable pairing of such important groups as tetrapods (amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds), such data are useless and those claims are false. The data actually are much more in accord with predictions based on creation than evolution.
The Evidence from Homology
Structures and organs in different creatures that are structurally similar, even though their function may be quite different, are said to be homologous, and the phenomenon is termed homology. These terms were coined by one of Darwin’s contemporaries, Sir Richard Owen, at that time one of the most formidable opponents of Darwinism. Darwin and his fellow evolutionists have always assumed that such similarities constitute one of the best evidences for evolution. In ignorance of the actual scientific evidence, this conclusion, from an evolutionary view, seems to be quite logical. However, not only is there an equally plausible explanation based on creation, but also the actual scientific evidence is contradictory to the evolutionist view that the possession of similar structures by different animals can be explained by inheritance from a common ancestor.
First, in many cases, perhaps most, the assumed common evolutionary ancestor of the creatures possessing homologous structures does not even possess the homologous structure or structures. In some cases creatures possess entire suites of similar major structures, none of which is possessed by the assumed common ancestor. It is thus necessary for evolutionists to postulate what is called parallel evolution, that is, the independent, parallel evolution of similar structures after the creatures had split off from the assumed common ancestor. It is difficult enough to imagine an evolutionary origin of a complex organ by chance. It is even more difficult to imagine that similar complex structures could arise by chance in different animals independently. It is asking too much, however, to have us believe that entire assortments of similar major structures could arise by chance independently in different animals. Evolutionists do not hesitate to invoke the miraculous as long as it can be concealed under the cloak of evolutionism.
Absolutely devastating to the evolutionary interpretation of homology is the evidence from genetics. If homologous structures in different animals are due to inheritance from a common ancestor, then the genes that code for these structures in one creature should be similar to the same genes in the other creature. This must be true if the evolutionary interpretation is correct. Actually, according to Sir Gavin de Beer, the British biologist and evolutionist, such genes are totally different from one another. Because of this and a mass of other evidence contrary to predictions based on evolution, Sir Gavin entitled his Oxford Biology Reader on that subject, Homology, An Unsolved Problem. 58 On the final page of that booklet is found the following statement:
It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find “homologous” genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as hopeless.
Not only has the crucially important prediction related to homologous structures based on evolution been falsified, not only is there much other evidence related to homology that is contradictory to predictions based on evolution, but creation offers an eminently satisfactory explanation of homologous structures. Creation implies a master engineer employing similar solutions to similar problems. Just as an engineer, employing sound engineering principles, designs bridges that are similar in many respects, so the creator, the master engineer, would design similar structures for similar purposes. Thus, in many respects, the design of four-legged reptiles and of four-legged mammals would be similar, differing however in those features required for different life styles. Monkeys, apes, and humans each have grasping hands, keen eyesight, keen hearing, and relatively large brains, not because these characteristics were inherited from a common ancestor but because their respective life styles require these characteristics. On balance then, the evidence from homology is strongly in favor of creation. Recent publications explicitly state that de Beer’s views are still valid today. 59
Thus, today we have a most astounding situation. Human witnesses have never observed evolution. Evolution cannot be subjected to the experimental method. The most sacred tenet of Darwinism — natural selection — in modern formulation is incapable of explaining anything. Furthermore, even some evolutionists are conceding that the mechanism of evolution proposed by evolutionary biologists could account for no more than trivial change in the time believed to have been available, and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution, based on present knowledge, seems impossible. Finally, the major features of the fossil record accord in an amazing fashion with the predictions based on special creation, but contradict the most fundamental predictions generated by the theory of evolution. And yet the demand is unceasing that evolution theory be accepted as the only scientific explanation for origins, even as an established fact, while excluding creation as a mere religious concept!
This rigid indoctrination in evolutionary dogma, with the exclusion of the competing concept of special creation, results in young people being indoctrinated in a non-theistic, naturalistic, humanistic religious philosophy in the guise of science. Science is perverted, academic freedom in denied, the educational process suffers, and constitutional guarantees of religious freedom are violated.
This unhealthy situation could be corrected by presenting students with the two competing models for origins, the creation model and the evolution model, with all supporting evidence for each model. This would permit an evaluation by the students of the strengths and weaknesses of each model. This is the course true education should pursue rather than following the present process of brainwashing students in evolutionary philosophy.
The Institute for Creation Research has nine scientists on its staff, seven of whom have doctorates in science from major universities, and many adjunct professors with doctorate degrees. My Ph.D. is in biochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley. Members of the Institute have authored numerous papers published in scientific journals, and have also published many books related to origins.
- Stephen J. Gould, Science 223 (1984): 255.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky: “On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology,” American Scientist 45 (December 1957): 388.
- M. Eden, in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, ed. P. S. Moorhead and M. M. Kaplan, (Philadelphia: Wistar Institute Press, 1967), p. 71.
- Laurie R. Godfrey, ed., Scientists Confront Creationism (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1983), p. xxvi.
- Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 2nd ed. (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1993).
- D.J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed. (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc., 1986), p. 2.
- Transcript of the speech by Dr. Michael Ruse, at the symposium, “The New Antievolutionism,” held at the 1993 AAAS Annual Meeting, Saturday, February 13, 1993, Boston.
- Julian Huxley and J. Bronowski, Growth of Ideas (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), p. 99.
- Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), p. 219.
- F.J. Ayala, Journal of Heredity 68 (1977): 3–10.
- George G. Simpson, This View of Life (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1964), p. 225.
- Richard Lewontin, Scientists Confront Creationism, ed. Laurie Godfrey, (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1983).
- Gould, Natural History (November 1995), p. 12.
- B.F. Glenister and B. J. Witzke, in Did the Devil Make Darwin Do It? Ed. D. B. Wilson, (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1983), p. 58.
- D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (New York: Pantheon Books (1983), p. 197.
- D.M. Raup, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979): 22.
- David Kitts, Evolution 28 (1974): 467.
- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), p. 229.
- Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed. (Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc., 1986), p. 325.
- J.W. Valentine, “The Evolution of Complex Animals,” in What Darwin Began, ed. Laurie Godfrey (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1985), p. 263.
- Ibid., p. 267.
- J.H. Lipps and P. W. Signor, eds., Origin and Early Evolution of the Metazoa (New York: Plenum Press, 1992), pp. 3–23.
- Stefan Bengtson, Nature 345 (1990): 765.
- E. White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London 177 (1996): 8.
- G.T. Todd, American Zoology 20 (4, 1980): 757.
- A.N. Strahler, Science and Earth History — The Evolution/Creation Controversy (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1987), p. 316.
- George G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 105.
- Robert T. Bakker, The Dinosaur Heresies (New York: Zebra Books, Kensington Publishing Corp., 1986) pp. 296–297.
- E.H. Colbert and M. Morales, Evolution of the Vertebrates (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1991), p. 193.
- James H. Marden, The Sciences (November/December 1995), pp. 26–30.
- Alan Feduccia, Science 259 (1993): 792.
- A.H. Bush, “On the Origin of Feathers,” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9 (1996): 132.
- Larry Martin, Sunday World-Herald, Omaha, NE (January 19, 1992), p. 17B.
- C.E. Oxnard, The Order of Man (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), p. 332; Solly Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Toplinger Publishing Co., 1970), p. 60.
- R.B. Lindsay, American Scientist 56 (1968): 100.
- H. Blum, American Scientist 43 (1955): 595.
- Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal (June 1970), p. 6.
- Julian Huxley, “Evolution and Genetics,” in What Is Science? Ed. J.R. Newman, (New York: Simon and Schuster (1955), p. 272.
- George G. Simpson and W.S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology, 2nd ed. (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1965), p. 466.
- S L. Miller, Science 117 (1953): 528.
- Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution From Space (London: J. M. Dent and Sons, 1981).
- H.P. Yockey, Journal of Theoretical Biology 67 (1977): 377.
- F.B. Salisbury, Nature 224 (1969): 342; American Biology Teacher 33 (1971): 335.
- J F. Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible? (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing Co., 1973).
- A.E. Wilder-Smith, The Creation of Life (Wheaton, Illinois: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1970).
- S. Schwabenthan, Parents (October 1979), p. 50.
- S.R. Scadding, Evolution Theory 5 (1981): 173.
- D.H. Kenyon and G. Steinman, Biochemical Predestination (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1969), p. 5.
- R.V. Eck and M. O. Dayhoff, Atlas of Protein Sequence and Structure (Silver Springs, Maryland: National Biomedical Research Foundation, 1966), p. 110.
- Ibid., p. 191.
- Ibid., p. 170.
- H. Drucker et al., Biochemistry 9 (1970); 1515.
- M.G. Grutter, L.H. Weaver , and B.W. Matthews, Nature 303 (1983): 828.
- J.A. King, Science 206 (1979): 67.
- Christian Schwabe and G. W. Warr, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 27 (3, Spring 1984): 465–484; C. Schwabe, Trends in Biochemical Sciences 11 (July 1986): 280–283; C. Schwabe, Comparative Biochemical Physiology 1078 (1994): 167–177.
- Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 306. Available from Woodbine and Associates, 6510 Bells Mill Road, Bethesda, MD 20817.
- D.B. Weishampel, Peter Dodson, and Halszka Osmolska, eds., The Dinosauria (Berkeley: University of Chicago Press, 1990), p. 12.
- Gavin de Beer, Homology, An Unsolved Problem (London: Oxford University Press, 1971).
- R. Sattler, “Homology — A Continuing Challenge,” Systematic Botany, 9 (4, 1984): 382–394; Louise Roth, in Ontogeny and Systematics, ed. E. J. Humphries, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988); G. P. Wanger, Evolution 43(6): 1157–1171 (1988).