Physical Anthropology

What is Evolution

Steve Bro's image for:
"What is Evolution"
Image by: 

Few words can provoke such a passionate response in people as “Evolution”. It can mean different things to different people, depending on their level of education or background. Many might be surprised to learn that evolution, as a scientific theory, was not the invention of Charles Darwin. Centuries before Darwin’s age, Greek philosophers propounded ideas about nature producing various organisms through biological changes. There were many contributors to this idea who were contempories of Darwin himself. In fact, Darwin’s grandfather, Erasimus, wrote articles about the idea of biological evolution, articles which were banned by the Catholic church.  

Evolution today is presented, on the whole, as an established scientific process which creates new life forms over vast periods of time. Many scientists are eager to dismiss all objections to this theory and make the bold claim that it has been scientifically proven beyond any reasonable doubt. But Science deals in realities, observable, testable facts, or, to put it another way, truths. Science cannot be established on belief or opinion. If 99% of all qualified scientists believe in a theory, that does not confirm it as a scientific fact, a truth. Mohandas Ghandi once said “in  a minority of one, the truth is still the truth“.

Please consider the following truths;

1)  All planets in the Sol system orbit the sun in an elliptical orbit and are held in motion by the gravitational pull of the sun and other celestial bodies.

2)  Water is the combination of two atoms of hydrogen with one of oxygen.

Now consider the general definition of biological evolution, as taught by most educational establishments;

“Biological evolution is the mechanism by which the first living organism developed from nonliving matter. Then, as it reproduced, it changed into different kinds of living things, producing ultimately all forms of life that have ever existed on earth, including humans. This has been accomplished without intelligent direction or supernatural intervention“.

The previous two statements are universally accepted by all scientists as “truths“, why? Because they have been clearly and indisputably demonstrated by scientific testing and, the evidence can be personally observed in the physical world. Now consider the third statement. It is not universally accepted by all scientists, far from it. In fact, it is the topic of fierce debate, not only between scientists who do and do not accept the theory of evolution but, even among those who do accept the theory.

But what of this theory, how is it understood, and why is it still not established and universally accepted by all, after all this time?

If evolution means the ability to adapt to an environment, to allow variety within a species, then it is unquestionably true, few of us, even the most religious, would deny that fact. But evolutionists, referring to Darwin’s data and persuasion, go much further and insist that the process of natural selection actually creates new species from inferior ones. Most honest scientists would admit that, while they believe that micro-evolution (tiny variations within a generation that accumulate into larger changes over vast periods of time), may be constantly at work in the natural world, macro-evolution (sudden dramatic changes to a species creating a completely new species), is physically impossible.

Examples have been given as evidence to support dramatic changes in species. One of the most famous is the “Peppered Moth“. It was observed that the darker variety flourished against a dark tree’s background, when the trees were discoloured by pollution. However, it should be pointed out that, it was a human intervention (pollution) which caused this imbalance in the first place, not some natural phenomenon. The lighter coloured moths did not become extinct and the darker coloured moths remained moths, they did not become a new species. This is weak “evidence” indeed.

Others point to the experiments of Stanley Miller. This scientist apparently produced a set of amino acids from various chemicals when he attempted to simulate the earth’s pre-historic environment in a vacuum in a chamber. This was hailed as the first steps in creating life. This was somewhat of a red herring though and, a very misleading experiment. Firstly, Miller presumed certain things about the earth’s early atmosphere (no free oxygen, for one thing). Secondly, Miller used pre-existing chemicals (methane etc) which he assumed were on the earth in the needed quantities. This poses another problem for evolutionists, namely, where did the original chemicals come from? but, let’s not go down that road just yet! Once Miller had produced (and I will not use the word “created”), the amino acids, he then had to remove them from the vacuum urgently. Why? Because in the environment they were in, they would have almost instantly started to degrade. This poses another problem for the “pre-biotic soup” theory. According to one writer “with oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays“. He goes on to say that “beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules.”
Add to this the fact that, Miller found a few amino acids and they were a mixture of “right-handed” and “left-handed” but, in order to produce a single protein molecule (not a living cell!), one would require 20 particular amino acids, that are all left-handed and in the correct sequence.      

Most scientists would admit that the difference between an amino acid and a living cell is absolutely vast and cannot be explained away by chance. Evolutionists often use the factor of vast periods of time to justify their extraordinary claims but, if one builds into the equation the fact that Stanley Miller and his associates were highly intelligent beings, with substantial technical resources and knowledge at their disposal, then one would have to acknowledge that such factors would more than make up for a time period of millions, or even billions, of years, yet those men could not even produce the basic protein molecules let alone a living organism! Time does not guarantee results.

Bryant Lecomte du Nouy, the first scientist to apply mathematical formulae successfully to the statement of biological laws gives mathematical formulae to show that “inorganic matter acting in accordance with it’s laws could not have created even a single molecule of protein, let alone a living organism with powers of reproduction”.

The situation for evolution becomes more dire when it is revealed that the fossil evidence shows a sudden explosion of life rather than a gradual process of change. Furthermore, there are no intermediate species living today or whose remains have been unearthed. There are men and there are apes but, there are no inbetweenies. Why did the inferior ape survive, in all it’s forms yet, not one of the superior life forms, which are said to have evolved from the ape have ever been found? Surely, there should be thousands, even millions, of fossils proving their existence but, in fact, there are none!

So embarrassing is the lack of evidence for evolution, and the amount of compelling scientific evidence against it that, even some scientists who believe in evolution have honestly admitted it’s failings. A London “Times” writer, Christopher Booker (who accepts evolution), said this about it: “It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The only trouble was that, as Darwin was himself at least partly aware, it was full of colossal holes.” Regarding Darwin’s Origin of Species, he observed: “We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the kind”. Even Charles Darwin, the founder of the theory, had doubts about it’s validity. He wrote, about the eye “To suppose that the eye could have been formed by evolution, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree“.

Evolution is not only a weak theory but, it is less than that, it is a myth which demands as much faith to accept as it does to believe that the Holy Grail exists and cures people (not a Bible teaching). The fundamental laws of physics contradict the theory of evolution. The first law is “matter can be neither created nor destroyed”. The second law of thermo-dynamics is “energy and matter, undirected, tend towards entropy” (chaos). Genes are rigid, self-replicating and stabilizing. All living things on earth today produce offspring within their specific species. Newton established that for every event there is a cause.

Logic indicates that life cannot have arisen by chance AND design so, one idea must be true and the other false. Most proponents of evolution would reject the concept of a designer, a God.

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, “today at least 80% of the scientists who deal with biology would probably admit that biology and life are regulated by some higher power”. Furthermore, according to the science journal “Nature”, “Almost 40% of biologists, physicists and mathematicians surveyed, believe in a God who not only exists, but also listens to and answers prayers”. There are also many scientists who would not admit to belief in a creator simply because of peer pressure and the adverse effect it may have on their careers, having been coerced into publicly accepting the theory of evolution. There have been numerous cases where respectable scientists have lost educational funding or a position with a large corporation because they dared to voice doubts over this theory. That is not science, it is tyranny and is almost as bad as the dark ages when the churches ruled the masses with the threat of hellfire or excommunication! Today there is a new inquisition and it enforces unquestioning adherence to the theory of biological evolution.

If, one day, scientists were to discover how to create life, it would not validate the theory of evolution as a scientific truth but, it would actually prove otherwise, namely that, life requires intelligent, meticulous design and engineering. “Chance” is not a designer or an engineer.

More about this author: Steve Bro

From Around the Web