Booklet > Creation or Evolution =97 Evolution: Fact = or Fiction?

What have we learned since Charles Darwin's treatise on evolution, = Origin=20 of Species, was first published in 1859? Science has advanced = greatly since=20 those horse-and-buggy days. In addition to a thorough exploration of the = fossil=20 record, a vast amount of other information is readily available.

As we saw when discussing the fossil record, the controversy about = evolution=20 is increasing.

Francis Hitching gives a general view of the debate to date: "In = April 1882,=20 Charles Darwin died peacefully of a heart attack at his family home in = Kent,=20 England. His great theory, the basis of all modern biology teaching, had = come to=20 be accepted with a fervor close to reverence . . . Yet as 1982 = approached, and with the centenary of his passing, change was in the = wind. Feuds=20 concerning the theory of evolution exploded rancorously in otherwise = staid and=20 decorous scientific journals.

"Entrenched positions, for and against, were established in high = places, and=20 insults lobbed like mortar bombs from either side. Meanwhile the = doctrine of=20 Divine creation, assumed by most scientists to have been relegated long = ago to=20 the pulpits of obscure fundamentalist sects, swept back into the = classrooms of=20 American schools. Darwinism is under assault on many fronts" (The = Neck of=20 the Giraffe, 1982, p. 7).

Why the confusion and contention? Simply put, as we saw with the = fossil=20 record, the increasing scientific evidence doesn't fit the Darwinist = model-and=20 evolutionists increasingly are finding themselves on the defensive.

How has this come about? It has happened mainly because the primary = supposed=20 proofs of the theory have not held up to further discovery and = scrutiny.

What about natural selection?

After the fossil record, the second supposed proof of evolution = offered by=20 Darwinists is natural selection, which they hoped biologists would = confirm.=20 "Just as the breeders selected those individuals best suited to the = breeder's=20 needs to be the parents of the next generation," explained British = philosopher=20 Tom Bethell, "so, Darwin argued, nature selected those organisms that = were best=20 fitted to survive the struggle for existence. In that way evolution = would=20 inevitably occur. And so there it was: a sort of improving machine = inevitably at=20 work in nature, 'daily and hourly scrutinizing,' Darwin wrote, 'silently = and=20 insensibly working . . . at the improvement of each organic=20 being.'

"In this way, Darwin thought, one type of organism could be = transformed into=20 another -for instance, he suggested, bears into whales. So that was how = we came=20 to have horses and tigers and things-by natural selection" (Tom Bethell, = "Darwin's Mistake," The Craft of Prose, Robert Woodward and = Wendell=20 Smith, editors, 1977, p. 309).

Darwin saw natural selection as the major factor driving evolutionary = change.=20 But how has this second pillar of evolutionary theory fared since = Darwin's day?=20 In truth, it has been quietly discarded by an increasing number of = theorists=20 among the scientific community.

Darwin's idea that the survival of the fittest would explain how = species=20 evolved has been relegated to a redundant, self-evident statement.

Geneticist Conrad Waddington of Edinburgh University defines the = fundamental=20 problem of advocating natural selection as a proof of Darwinism: = "Natural=20 selection, . . . turns out on closer inspection to be a = tautology, a=20 statement of an inevitable although previously unrecognized relation. It = states=20 that the fittest individuals in a population ... will leave most = offspring"=20 (Bethell, p. 310).

In other words, what are the fittest? Why, those that survive, of = course. And=20 what survives? Why, naturally, the fittest. The problem is that circular = reasoning doesn't point to any independent criteria that can evaluate = whether=20 the theory is true.

Selection doesn't change species

Darwin cited an example of the way natural selection was supposed to = work: A=20 wolf that had inherited the ability to run especially fast was better = equipped=20 to survive. His advantage in outrunning others in the pack when food was = scarce=20 meant he could eat better and thus survive longer.
Yet the very = changes that=20 enabled the wolf to run faster could easily become a hindrance if other=20 modifications of the body did not accompany the increased speed. For = example,=20 the additional exertion required to run faster would naturally place an = added=20 strain on the animal's heart, and eventually it could drop from a heart = attack.=20 The survival of the fittest would require that any biological or = anatomical=20 alterations would have to be in harmony and synchronized with other = bodily=20 modifications, or the changes would be of no benefit.

Natural selection, scientists have found, in reality deals only with = the=20 number of species, not the change of the species. It has to do with the = survival=20 and not the arrival of the species. Natural selection only preserves = existing=20 genetic information (DNA); it doesn't create genetic material that would = allow=20 an animal to sprout a new organ, limb or some other anatomical = feature.

"Natural selection," said professor Waddington, "is that some things = leave=20 more offspring than others; and you ask, which leave more offspring than = others?=20 And it is those that leave more offspring; and there is nothing more to = it than=20 that. The whole guts of evolution-which is, how do you come to have = horses and=20 tigers and things-is outside the mathematical theory [of neo-Darwinism]" = (Wistar Symposium, Moorehead and Kaplan, 1967, p. 14).

Tom Bethell gets to the heart of the problem with natural selection = as the=20 foundation of evolution: "This was no good at all. As T.H. Morgan [1933 = Nobel=20 Prize winner in medicine for his experiments with the Drosophila fruit = fly] had=20 remarked, with great clarity: 'Selection, then, has not produced = anything new,=20 but only more of certain kinds of individuals. Evolution, however, means = producing new things, not more of what already exists' "(Bethell, pp. = 311-312,=20 emphasis added).

Bethell concludes: "Darwin's theory, I believe, is on the verge of = collapse.=20 In his famous book, [Origin of Species], Darwin made a mistake=20 sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only = recently=20 been recognized as such ... I have not been surprised to read = . . .=20 that in some of the latest evolutionary theories 'natural selection = plays no=20 role at all.' Darwin, I suggest, is in the process of being discarded, = but=20 perhaps in deference to the venerable old gentleman, . . . it = is being=20 done as discreetly and gently as possible, with a minimum of publicity"=20 (Bethell, pp. 308, 313-314).

Sadly, the critical examination of natural selection has been = undertaken so=20 discreetly that most people are unaware of it-so the pervasive deception = that=20 began more than 140 years ago continues.

A look at random mutation

If natural selection is not the answer, what about the third supposed = proof-random mutation-as a cornerstone of evolution?

Curiously enough, Darwin himself was one of the first to discount = beneficial=20 effects from rare changes he noted in species. He did not even include = them in=20 his theory. "He did not consider them important," says Maurice Caullery = in his=20 book Genetics and Heredity, "because they nearly always represented an = obvious=20 disadvantage from the point of view of the struggle for existence; = consequently=20 they would most likely be rapidly eliminated in the wild state by the = operation=20 of natural selection" (1964, p. 10, emphasis added).

In Darwin's lifetime the principles of genetics were not clearly = understood.=20 Gregor Mendel had published his findings on genetic principles in 1866, = but his=20 work was overlooked at the time. Later, at the beginning of the 20th = century,=20 Hugo De Vries rediscovered these principles, which evolutionists quickly = seized=20 on to support evolution. Sir Julian Huxley, one of the principal = spokesmen for=20 evolutionary theory in the 20th century, commented on the = unpredictability of=20 mutations: "Mutation . . . provides the raw material of = evolution; it=20 is a random affair and takes place in all directions" (Evolution in=20 Action, 1953, p. 38).

So, "shortly after the turn of the [19th to the 20th] century, = Darwin's=20 theory suddenly seemed plausible again," writes Hitching. "It was found = that=20 once in a while, absolutely at random (about once in ten million times = during=20 cell division, we now know) the genes make a copying mistake. These = mistakes are=20 known as mutations, and are mostly harmful. They lead to a weakened = plant, or a=20 sick or deformed creature. They do not persist within the species, = because they=20 are eliminated by natural selection . . .

"However, followers of Darwin have come to believe that it is the = occasional=20 beneficial mutation, rarely though it happens, which is what counts in=20 evolution. They say these favorable mutations, together with sexual = mixing, are=20 sufficient to explain how the whole bewildering variety of life on Earth = today=20 originated from a common genetic source" (Hitching, p. 49, emphasis = added).

Mutations: liability, not benefit

What has almost a century of research discovered? That mutations are=20 pathological mistakes and not helpful changes in the genetic code.

C.P. Martin of McGill University in Montreal wrote, "Mutation is a=20 pathological process which has had little or nothing to do with = evolution" ("A=20 Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," American Scientist, January = 1953,=20 p. 100). Professor Martin's investigations revealed mutations are = overwhelmingly=20 negative and never creative. He observed that an apparently beneficial = mutation=20 was likely only a correction of a previously deleterious one, similar to = punching a man with a dislocated shoulder and inadvertently putting it = back into=20 place.

Science writer Milton explains the problem: "The results of such = copying=20 errors are tragically familiar. In body cells, faulty replication shows = itself=20 as cancer. Sunlight's mutagenic [mutation-inducing] power causes skin = cancer;=20 the cigarette's mutagenic power causes lung cancer. In sexual cells, = faulty=20 reproduction of whole chromosome number 21 results in a child with = Down's=20 syndrome" (Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, = 1997, p.=20 156). Yet evolutionists would have us believe that such genetic mistakes = are not=20 only not harmful to the afflicted creature but are helpful in the long = run.

Phillip Johnson observes: "To suppose that such a random event could=20 reconstruct even a single complex organ like a liver or kidney is about = as=20 reasonable as to suppose that an improved watch can be designed by = throwing an=20 old one against a wall" (Darwin on Trial, p. 37).

We can be thankful that mutations are extremely rare. An average of = one=20 mistake per 10 million correct copies occurs in the genetic code.

Whoever or whatever types 10 million letters with only one mistake = would=20 easily be the world's best typist and probably would not be human. Yet = this is=20 the astounding accuracy of our supposedly blind genetic code when it = replicates=20 itself.

If, however, these copying errors were to accumulate, a species, = instead of=20 improving, would eventually degenerate and perish. But geneticists have=20 discovered a self-correcting system.

"The genetic code in each living thing has its own built-in = limitations,"=20 says Hitching. "It seems designed to stop a plant or creature stepping = too far=20 away from the average . . . Every series of breeding = experiments that=20 has ever taken place has established a finite limit to breeding = possibilities.=20 Genes are a strong influence for conservatism, and allow only modest = change.=20 Left to their own devices, artificially bred species usually die out = (because=20 they are sterile or less robust) or quickly revert to the norm" = (Hitching, pp.=20 54-55).

Some scientists reluctantly concede that mutations do not explain = Darwin's=20 proposed transition from one species to the next. Writing about = zoologist=20 Pierre-Paul Grass=E9, Hayward says: "In 1973 he published a major book = on=20 evolution . . . First and foremost, the book aims to expose = Darwinism=20 as a theory that does not work, because it clashes with so many = experimental=20 findings.

"As Grass=E9 says in his introduction: 'Today our duty is to destroy = the myth=20 of evolution . . . Some people, owing to their sectarianism, = purposely=20 overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the = falsity of=20 their beliefs' . . .

"Take mutation first. Grass=E9 has studied this extensively, both = inside his=20 laboratory and in nature. In all sorts of living things, from bacteria = to plants=20 and animals, he has observed that mutations do not take succeeding = generations=20 further and further from their starting point. Instead, the changes are = like the=20 flight of a butterfly in a green house, which travels for miles without = moving=20 more than a few feet from its starting point.

There are invisible but firmly fixed boundaries that mutations can = never=20 cross . . . He insists that mutations are only trivial = changes; they=20 are merely the result of slightly altered genes, whereas 'creative = evolution=20 . . . demands the genesis of new ones'" (Hayward, p. 25).

Embarrassingly for evolutionists, mutation is also not the answer. If = anything, the self-correcting system to eliminate mutations shows that a = great=20 intelligence was at work when the overall genetic system was designed so = that=20 random mutations would not destroy the beneficial genes. Ironically, = mutation=20 shows the opposite of what evolutionism teaches: In real life random = mutation is=20 the villain and not the hero.

This takes us to one last point on mutations: the inability of = evolution to=20 explain the appearance of simple life and intricate organs.

The wondrous cell

Cells are marvelous and incredibly complicated living things. They = are=20 self-sufficient and function like miniature chemical factories. The = closer we=20 look at cells, the more we realize their incredible complexity.

For example, the cell wall is a wonder in itself. If it were too = porous,=20 harmful solutions would enter and cause the cell to burst. On the other = hand, if=20 the wall were too impervious, no nourishment could come in or waste = products go=20 out, and the cell would quickly die.

Biochemist Behe, the associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh=20 University, summarizes one of the fundamental flaws of evolution as an=20 explanation for any form of life. "Darwin's theory encounters its = greatest=20 difficulties when it comes to explaining the development of the cell. = Many=20 cellular systems are what I term 'irreducibly complex.' That means the = system=20 needs several components before it can work properly.

"An everyday example of irreducible complexity is a mousetrap, built = of=20 several pieces (platform, hammer, spring and so on). Such a system = probably=20 cannot be put together in a Darwinian manner, gradually improving its = function.=20 You can't catch a mouse with just the platform and then catch a few more = by=20 adding the spring. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch = any=20 mice."

Michael Behe's point is that a cell missing a tenth of its parts = doesn't=20 function only one tenth less as well as a complete cell; it doesn't = function at=20 all. He concludes: "The bottom line is that the cell-the very basis of = life-is=20 staggeringly complex. But doesn't science already have answers, or = partial=20 answers, for how these systems originated? No" ("Darwin Under the = Microscope,"=20 New York Times, Oct. 29, 1996, p. A25).

Miniature technological marvel

Michael Denton, the microbiologist and senior research fellow at the=20 University of Otago in New Zealand, contrasts how the cell was viewed in = Darwin's day with what today's researchers can see. In Darwin's time the = cell=20 could be viewed at best at a magnification of several hundred times. = Using the=20 best technology of their day, when scientists viewed the cell they saw = "a=20 relatively disappointing spectacle appearing only as an ever-changing = and=20 apparently disordered pattern of blobs and particles which, under the = influence=20 of unseen turbulent forces, [were] continually tossed haphazardly in all = directions" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1985, p. 328).

The years since then have brought astounding technological = advancements. Now=20 researchers can peer into the tiniest parts of cells. Do they still see = only=20 formless blobs, or do they witness something far more astounding?

"To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular = biology,"=20 writes Dr. Denton, "we must magnify a cell a thousand million times = until it is=20 twenty kilometres in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough = to=20 cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would = be an=20 object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design.

"On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like = the port=20 holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual = stream of=20 materials in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would = find=20 ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. = We would=20 see endless highly organized corridors and conduits branching in every = direction=20 away from the perimeter of the cell, some leading to the central memory = bank in=20 the nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing units.

"The nucleus itself would be a vast spherical chamber more than a = kilometre=20 in diameter, resembling a geodesic dome inside of which we would see, = all neatly=20 stacked together in ordered arrays, the miles of coiled chains of the = DNA=20 molecules ...

"We would wonder at the level of control implicit in the movement of = so many=20 objects down so many seemingly endless conduits, all in perfect unison. = We would=20 see all around us, in every direction we looked, all sorts of robot-like = machines. We would notice that the simplest of the functional components = of the=20 cell, the protein molecules, were astonishingly, complex pieces of = molecular=20 machinery, each one consisting of about three thousand atoms arranged in = highly=20 organized 3-D spatial conformation.

"We would wonder even more as we watched the strangely purposeful = activities=20 of these weird molecular machines, particularly when we realized that, = despite=20 all our accumulated knowledge of physics and chemistry, the task of = designing=20 one such molecular machine-that is one single functional protein = molecule-would=20 be beyond our capacity . . . Yet the life of the cell depends = on the=20 integrated activities of thousands, certainly tens, and probably = hundreds of=20 thousands of different protein molecules" (Denton, pp. 328-329).

This is a microbiologist's description of one cell. The human body = contains=20 about 10 trillion (10,000,000,000,000) brain, nerve, muscle and other = types of=20 cells.

Did this come about by chance?

Yet, as complex as cells are, the smallest living things are even far = more=20 intricate. Sir James Gray, a Cambridge University professor of zoology, = states:=20 "Bacteria [are] far more complex than any inanimate system known to man. = There=20 is not a laboratory in the world which can compete with the biochemical = activity=20 of the smallest living organism" (Marshall and Sandra Hall, The = Truth: God=20 or Evolution?, 1974, p. 89).

How complex are the tiniest living things? Even the simplest cells = must=20 possess a staggering amount of genetic information to function. For = instance,=20 the bacterium R. coli is one of the tiniest unicellular creatures in = nature.=20 Scientists calculate it has some 2,000 genes, each with around 1,000 = enzymes=20 (organic catalysts, chemicals that speed up other chemical reactions). = An enzyme=20 is made up of a billion nucleotides, each of which amounts to a letter = in the=20 chemical alphabet, comparable to a byte in computer language. These = enzymes=20 instruct the organism how to function and reproduce. The DNA information = in just=20 this single tiny cell is "the approximate equivalent of 100 million = pages of the=20 Encyclopaedia Britannica" (John Whitcomb, The Early = Earth,=20 1972, p. 79).

What are the odds that the enzymes needed to produce the simplest = living=20 creature-with each enzyme performing a specific chemical function-could = come=20 together by chance? Astrophysicists Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra = Wickramasinghe=20 calculated the odds at one chance in 1040,000 (that is, 10 to the = 40,000th=20 power: mathematical shorthand for a 10 followed by 40,000 zeros, a = number long=20 enough to fill about seven pages of this publication).

Note that a probability of less than 1 in 1050 is considered by=20 mathematicians to be a complete impossibility (Hayward, pp. 35-37). By=20 comparison, Sir Arthur Eddington, another mathematician, estimates there = are no=20 more than 1080 atoms in the universe! (Hitching, p. 70).

As long as evolutionists keep their conceptions as vague = abstractions, they=20 can sound plausible. But, when rigorous mathematics are applied to their = generalities, and their assertions are specifically quantified, the=20 underpinnings of Darwinian evolution are exposed as so implausible and=20 unrealistic as to be impossible.

Scientists' revealing reaction

Molecular biochemist Behe comments on the curious academic and = scientific=20 reaction to discoveries about the intricacy of the cell: "Over the past = four=20 decades modern biochemistry has uncovered the secrets of the cell. The = progress=20 has been hard won. It has required tens of thousands of people to = dedicate the=20 better parts of their lives to the tedious work of the laboratory=20 . . .

"The results of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell-to=20 investigate life at the molecular level-is a loud, clear, piercing cry = of=20 'design!' The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must = be ranked=20 as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The = discovery=20 rivals those of Newton and Einstein, Lavoisier and Schr=F6dinger, = Pasteur, and=20 Darwin. The observation of the intelligent design of life is as = momentous as the=20 observation that the earth goes around the sun or that disease is caused = by=20 bacteria or that radiation is emitted in quanta.

"The magnitude of the victory, gained at such great cost through = sustained=20 effort over the course of decades, would be expected to send champagne = corks=20 flying in labs around the world. This triumph of science should evoke = cries of=20 'Eureka!' from ten thousand throats, should occasion much hand-slapping = and=20 high-fiving, and perhaps even be an excuse to take the day off.

"But no bottles have been uncorked, no hands slapped. Instead a = curious,=20 embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. When the = subject=20 comes up in public, feet start to shuffle, and breathing gets a bit = labored. In=20 private people are a bit more relaxed; many explicitly admit the obvious = but=20 then stare at the ground, shake their heads, and let it go at that.

"Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling = discovery? Why is the observation of design handled with intellectual = gloves?=20 The dilemma is that while one side of the elephant is labeled = intelligent=20 design, the other side might be labeled God" (Behe, pp. 232-233, = original=20 emphasis).

These discoveries reveal that the simplest living cell is so = intricate and=20 complex in its design that even the possibility of its coming into = existence=20 accidentally is unthinkable. It is clear evolutionists don't have a = rational=20 answer to how the first cells were formed. This is just one of their = many=20 problems in trying to explain a wondrous creation that they argue had to = come=20 together by chance.

Creation or Evolution =97 Does It Really Matter What You = Believe?

[ Return to = booklet=20 contents ]

Evolution: Fact or Fiction?

[ Return to = booklet=20 contents ] [ Read=20 Next Section ]