A Review of Evolution
Ultimately, the debate between creation and evolution comes down to which one is absolute truth. Truth is not governed by age or by opinion, but rather is something that transcends time and culture without contradiction and without being disproved. Truth is “conformable to fact; being in accordance with the actual state of things” (Webster). Truth is in essence reality (what really is). What are some of the claims of evolution, and does it line up with what is really true?
Before looking at the validity of these claims, it is important to take a little time to define what the terms evolution and creation mean. The type of evolution that will be addressed is the type that says evolution is a “change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift” (“Evolution”). This definition implies that this change of the gene pool can result in completely new species. The type of creation that will be addressed is the one defined in the Bible, namely that God created everything in six days (Gen. 2:2); He created each of the different kinds of animals individually (Gen. 1:21,24); He created humans in His own image (Gen. 1:26-27); and all this was done without evolution between kinds.
Now consider the evidence regarding evolution. Evolution uses part of the truth in regards to natural selection, but it extends that truth to say that genetic information is added to the gene pool, thereby causing new species. This is where evolutionists overstep scientific boundaries of observation. There simply is no verifiable scientific evidence for this.
There are three flaws with evolution that need to be considered. First is the dating system. The dating system in use, the U-Th-Pb dating system, is invalid because scientists are basing the tests off of variable conditions (Snelling). Since the dates are in doubt, it is unreasonable to assume that a certain creature existed before the current kinds of creatures and then evolved into the current kinds. The second flaw is this: in earth’s documented history there is no evidence or observation of evolution between kinds (Morris). The third flaw is the idea of mutation. Evolution considers mutations necessary for evolution between kinds to occur. But as is seen from simple observation, when animals above the molecular level are born mutated they are never as healthy as or more developed than the regular species. The idea that random mutation creates biological diversity fails computer simulations, and it fails biologically. This observation was confirmed by Theodosius Dobzhansky's fruit fly radiation experiments, Goldschmidt's gypsy moth experiments, and others. Decades of research were conducted in the early 20th century, bombarding fruit flies and moths with radiation in hope of mutating their DNA and producing improved creatures. These experiments were a total failure – there were no observed improvements – only weak, sickly, deformed fruit flies (Marshall). So then mutations, a necessity for the evolution to be true, would be considered reverse evolution, and would in fact contradict evolution because it produces inferior, not superior, creatures.
Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” (Darwin, qtd. by Tackett). In other words, if something, or anything, did not come about through these successive modifications, then evolution is not true. Darwin’s theory has been disproved in this way by looking at the individual cell, a very complex organism. The cell is irreducibly complex, in that it cannot function if it is missing any of the parts that it possesses. This in itself, by Darwin’s own criteria, has broken down evolution. It simply doesn’t hold up to the scientific evidence.
The Bible. Print.
Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: 1859. Print.
"Evolution." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. Web. 23 Oct. 2009.
Marshall, Perry. "If You Can Read This, I Can Prove God Exists." Cosmic Fingerprints. 03 Jun 2005. Web. 23 Oct 2009. <http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm>
Morris, John. "What's a Missing Link?." Institute for Creation Research. 01 Apr 2006. Web. 23 Oct 2009.
Provine, William. "Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy?." Stanford University. 30 Apr 1994. Address. <http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or161/161main.htm>
Snelling, Andrew. "Dubious Radiogenic Pb Places U-Th-Pb Mineral Dating in Doubt." Institute for Creation Research. Jan 2000. Web. 23 Oct 2009. <http://www.icr.org/articles/view/462/259/>.
Tackett, Del. The Truth Project. Focus on the Family: 2008, DVD.
Webster, Noah. American Dictionary of the English Language. Chesapeake: Foundation for American Christian Education, 2007. Print.