Booklet > Creation or Evolution =97 What Does the = Fossil Record Show?

Can the theory of evolution be proven? After all, it is called the = theory of=20 evolution in acknowledgment that it is a hypothesis rather than a = confirmed=20 scientific fact.

Where can we find evidence supporting evolution as an explanation for = the=20 teeming variety of life on earth?

Since evolutionists claim that the transition from one species to a = new one=20 takes place in tiny, incremental changes over millions of years, they=20 acknowledge that we cannot observe the process taking place today. Our = lifespans=20 simply are too short to directly observe such a change.

Instead, they say, we have to look at the past-the fossil record that = shows=20 the many life forms that have existed over earth's history-to find = transitions=20 from one species to another.

Darwin's greatest challenge

When Charles Darwin proposed his theory in the mid-19th century, he = was=20 confident that fossil discoveries would provide clear and convincing = evidence=20 that his conjectures were correct. His theory predicted that countless=20 transitional forms must have existed, all gradually blending almost=20 imperceptibly from one tiny step to the next, as species progressively = evolved=20 to higher, better-adapted forms.

Indeed that would have to be the case. Well in excess of a million = species=20 are alive today. For all those to have evolved from common ancestors, we = should=20 be able to find millions if not hundreds of millions of intermediate = forms=20 gradually evolving into other species.

It was not only fossils of transitional species between apes and = humans that=20 would have to be discovered to prove Darwin's theory. The gaps were = enormous.=20 Science writer Richard Milton notes that the missing links "included = every part=20 of the animal kingdom: from whelks to whales and from bacteria to = bactrian=20 camels. Darwin and his successors envisaged a process that would begin = with=20 simple marine organisms living in ancient seas, progressing through = fishes, to=20 amphibians-living partly in the sea and partly on land-and hence on to = reptiles,=20 mammals, and eventually the primates, including humans" (Shattering = the=20 Myths of Darwinism, 1997, p. 253).

However, even Darwin himself struggled with the fact that the fossil = record=20 failed to support his conclusions. ". . . Why, if species have = descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere = see=20 innumerable transitional forms? . . . Why do we not find them = imbedded=20 in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of = Species,=20 1958 Masterpieces of Science edition, pp. 136-137).

". . . The number of intermediate varieties, which have = formerly=20 existed, [must] be truly enormous," he wrote. "Why then is not every = geological=20 formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology = assuredly=20 does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, = perhaps, is=20 the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the = theory [of=20 evolution]" (Darwin, pp. 260-261).

Darwin acknowledged that the fossil record failed to support his = conclusions.=20 But, since he thought his theory obviously was the correct explanation = for=20 earth's many and varied forms of life, he and others thought it only a = matter of=20 time before fossilized missing links would be found to fill in the many = gaps.=20 His answer for the lack of fossil evidence to support his theory was = that=20 scientists hadn't looked long enough and hadn't looked in the right = places.=20 Eventually they would find the predicted fossil remains that would prove = his=20 view. "The explanation lies, I believe, in the extreme imperfection of = the=20 geological record," he wrote (p. 261).

He was convinced that later explorations and discoveries would fill = in the=20 abundant gaps where the transitional species on which his theory was = based were=20 missing. But now, a century and a half later, after literally hundreds = of=20 thousands of fossil plants and animals have been discovered and = cataloged and=20 with few corners of the globe unexplored, what does the fossil record = show?

What the record reveals

David Raup is a firm believer in evolution and a respected = paleontologist=20 (scientist who studies fossils) at the University of Chicago and the = Field=20 Museum. However, he admits that the fossil record has been = misinterpreted if not=20 outright mischaracterized. He writes: "A large number of well-trained = scientists=20 outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately = gotten the=20 idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This = probably=20 comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: = low-level=20 textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably = some=20 wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates = hoped to=20 find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found-yet = the=20 optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks"=20 (Science, Vol. 213, p. 289, emphasis added).

Niles Eldredge, curator in the department of invertebrates at the = American=20 Museum of Natural History and adjunct professor at the City University = of New=20 York, is another vigorous supporter of evolution. But he finds himself = forced to=20 admit that the fossil record fails to support the traditional = evolutionary=20 view.

"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long," he = writes.=20 "It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields = zigzags,=20 minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of = change-over=20 millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the = prodigious=20 change that has occurred in evolutionary history.

"When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually = shows up=20 with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not = evolve=20 elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet = that's how=20 the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to = learn=20 something about evolution" (Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at = the High=20 Table of Evolutionary Theory, 1995, p. 95, emphasis added).

After an immense worldwide search by geologists and paleontologists, = the=20 "missing links" Darwin predicted would be found to bolster his theory = are still=20 missing.

Harvard University paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould is perhaps = today's=20 best-known popular writer on evolution. An ardent evolutionist, he = collaborated=20 with Professor Eldredge in proposing alternatives to the traditional = view of=20 Darwinism. Like Eldredge, he recognizes that the fossil record = fundamentally=20 conflicts with Darwin's idea of gradualism.

"The history of most fossil species," he writes, "includes two = features=20 particularly inconsistent with gradualism [gradual evolution from one = species to=20 another]:

"[1] Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional = [evolutionary]=20 change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record = looking=20 pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological [anatomical = or=20 structural] change is usually limited and directionless.

"[2] Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does = not arise=20 gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors: it appears all = at once=20 and 'fully formed'" (Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural=20 History, May 1977, pp. 13-14).

Fossils missing in crucial places

Francis Hitching, member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, the=20 Prehistoric Society and the Society for Physical Research, also sees = problems in=20 using the fossil record to support Darwinism.

"There are about 250,000 different species of fossil plants and = animals in=20 the world's museums," he writes. "This compares with about 1.5 million = species=20 known to be alive on Earth today. Given the known rates of evolutionary=20 turnover, it has been estimated that at least 100 times more fossil = species have=20 lived than have been discovered . . . But the curious thing is = that=20 there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in = all the=20 important places.

"When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply = aren't=20 there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. = Either=20 they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes = on about=20 whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional = between this=20 group and that.

". . . There ought to be cabinets full of = intermediates-indeed, one=20 would expect the fossils to blend so gently into one another that it = would be=20 difficult to tell where the invertebrates ended and the vertebrates = began. But=20 this isn't the case. Instead, groups of well-defined, easily = classifiable fish=20 jump into the fossil record seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously, = suddenly,=20 full-formed, and in a most un-Darwinian way. And before them are = maddening,=20 illogical gaps where their ancestors should be" (The Neck of the = Giraffe:=20 Darwin, Evolution and the New Biology, 1982, pp. 9-10, emphasis = added).

Acknowledging that the fossil record contradicts rather than supports = Darwinism, professors Eldredge and Gould have proposed a radically = different=20 theory they call "punctuated equilibrium": that bursts of evolution = occurred in=20 small, isolated populations that then became dominant and showed no = change over=20 millions and millions of years. This, they say, is the only way to = explain the=20 lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record.

As Newsweek explains: "In 1972 Gould and Niles Eldredge = collaborated=20 on a paper intended at the time merely to resolve a professional = embarrassment=20 for paleontologists: their inability to find the fossils of transitional = forms=20 between species, the so-called 'missing links.' Darwin, and most of = those who=20 followed him, believed that the work of evolution was slow, gradual and=20 continuous and that a complete lineage of ancestors, shading = imperceptibly one=20 into the next, could in theory be reconstructed for all living animals=20 . . . But a century of digging since then has only made their = absence=20 more glaring . . . It was Eldredge and Gould's notion to call = off the=20 search and accept the evidence of the fossil record on its own terms" = ("Enigmas=20 of Evolution," March 29, 1982, p. 39, emphasis added).

As some observers point out, this is an inherently unprovable theory = for=20 which the primary evidence to support it is lack of evidence in the = fossil=20 record to support transitional forms between species.

Fossil record no longer incomplete

The fossil record has been thoroughly explored and documented. = Darwin's=20 excuse of "extreme imperfection of the geological record" is no longer=20 credible.

How complete is the fossil record? Michael Denton is a medical doctor = and=20 biological researcher. He writes that "when estimates are made of the = percentage=20 of [now-] living forms found as fossils, the percentage turns out to be=20 surprisingly high, suggesting that the fossil record may not be as bad = as is=20 often maintained" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1985, p. = 189).

He explains that "of the 329 living families of terrestrial = vertebrates=20 [mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians] 261 or 79.1 percent have been = found as=20 fossils and, when birds (which are poorly fossilized) are excluded, the=20 percentage rises to 87.8 percent" (Denton, p. 189).

In other words, almost 88 percent of the varieties of mammals, = reptiles and=20 amphibians populating earth have been found in the fossil record. How = many=20 transitional forms, then, have been found? ". . . Although = each of=20 these classes [fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and primates] is = well=20 represented in the fossil record, as of yet no one has discovered a = fossil=20 creature that is indisputably transitional between one species and = another=20 species. Not a single undisputed 'missing link' has been found in all = the=20 exposed rocks of the Earth's crust despite the most careful and = extensive=20 searches" (Milton, pp. 253-254, emphasis added).

If Darwin's theory were true, transitional creatures such as = invertebrates=20 with partially developed backbones, fish with rudimentary legs, reptiles = with=20 primitive wings and innumerable creatures with semievolved anatomical = features=20 should be the rule, scattered throughout the fossil strata. But they are = nonexistent.

What about fossil proofs?

At times various fossil species have been presented as firm proof of=20 evolution at work. Perhaps the most famous is the supposed evolution of = the=20 horse as presented in many biology textbooks. But is it what it is = claimed to=20 be?

Notice what Professor Eldredge has to say about this classic "proof" = of=20 evolution: "George Gaylord Simpson spent a considerable segment of his = career on=20 horse evolution. His overall conclusion: Horse evolution was by no means = the=20 simple, linear and straightforward affair it was made out to be ... = Horse=20 evolution did not proceed in one single series, from step A to step B = and so=20 forth, culminating in modern, single-toed large horses. Horse evolution, = to=20 Simpson, seemed much more bushy, with lots of species alive at any one=20 time-species that differed quite a bit from one another, and which had = variable=20 numbers of toes, size of teeth, and so forth.

"In other words, it is easy, and all too tempting, to survey the = fossil=20 history of a group and select examples that seem best to exemplify = linear change=20 through time ... But picking out just those species that exemplify = intermediate=20 stages along a trend, while ignoring all other species that don't seem = to fit in=20 as well, is something else again. The picture is distorted. The actual=20 evolutionary pattern isn't fully represented" (Niles Eldredge, The = Great=20 Debate, p. 131).

Eldredge in effect admits that paleontologists picked and chose which = species=20 they thought fit best with their theory and ignored the rest. George = Gaylord=20 Simpson himself was more blunt: "The uniform continuous transformation = of=20 Hyracotherium [a fossil species thought to be the ancestor of the horse] = into=20 Equus [the modern horse], so dear to the hearts of generations of = textbook=20 writers, never happened in nature" (Life of the Past, 1953, p.=20 119).

Professor Raup elaborates on the problem paleontologists face in = trying to=20 demonstrate evolution from the fossil record: ". . . We are = now about=20 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been = greatly=20 expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the = situation=20 hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky = and,=20 ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than = we had=20 in Darwin's time.

"By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in = the=20 fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have = had to=20 be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information-what = appeared=20 to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available = now=20 appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic = [evolutionary]"=20 ("Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of = Natural=20 History Bulletin 50, January 1979, pp. 22-25, emphasis added).

Paleontology's well-kept secret

What does all this mean? In plain language, if evolution means the = gradual=20 change of one kind of organism into another kind, the outstanding = characteristic=20 of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution-and = abundant=20 evidence to the contrary. The only logical place to find proof for = evolutionary=20 theory is in the fossil record. But, rather than showing slow, gradual = change=20 over eons, with new species continually emerging, the fossils show the=20 opposite.

Professor Eldredge touched on the magnitude of the problem when he = admitted=20 that Darwin "essentially invented a new field of scientific inquiry-what = is now=20 called 'taphonomy'-to explain why the fossil record is so deficient, so = full of=20 gaps, that the predicted patterns of gradual change simply do not = emerge"=20 (Eldredge, pp. 95-96, emphasis added).

Professor Gould similarly admits that the "extreme rarity" of = evidence for=20 evolution in the fossil record is "the trade secret of paleontology." He = goes on=20 to acknowledge that "the evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks = have data=20 only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, = however=20 reasonable, not the evidence of fossils" ("Evolution's Erratic Pace,"=20 Natural History, May 1977, p. 14, emphasis added).

But do paleontologists share this trade secret with others? Hardly. = "Reading=20 popular or even textbook introductions to evolution, . . . you = might=20 hardly guess that they [fossil gaps] exist, so glibly and confidently do = most=20 authors slide through them. In the absence of fossil evidence, they = write what=20 have been termed 'just so' stories. A suitable mutation just happened to = take=20 place at the crucial moment, and hey presto, a new stage of evolution = was=20 reached" (Hitching, pp. 12-13).

Regarding this misrepresentation of the evidence, Phillip Johnson = writes:=20 "Just about everyone who took a college biology course during the last = sixty=20 years or so has been led to believe that the fossil record was a bulwark = of=20 support for the classic Darwinian thesis, not a liability that had to be = explained away . . .

"The fossil record shows a consistent pattern of sudden appearance = followed=20 by a stasis, that life's history is more a story of variation around a = set of=20 basic designs than one of accumulating improvement, that extinction has = been=20 predominantly by catastrophe rather than gradual obsolescence, and that = orthodox=20 interpretations of the fossil record often owe more to Darwinist = preconception=20 than to the evidence itself.

Paleontologists seem to have thought it their duty to protect the = rest of us=20 from the erroneous conclusions we might have drawn if we had known the = actual=20 state of the evidence" (Darwin on Trial, 1993, pp. 58-59).

The secret evolutionists don't want revealed is that, even by their = own=20 interpretations, the fossil record shows fully formed species appearing = for a=20 time and then disappearing with no change. Other species appeared at = other times=20 before they, too, disappeared with little or no change. The fossil = record simply=20 does not support the central thesis of Darwinism, that species slowly = and=20 gradually evolved from one form to another.

Fact or interesting speculation?

Professor Johnson notes that "Darwinists consider evolution to be a = fact, not=20 just a theory, because it provides a satisfying explanation for the = pattern of=20 relationship linking all living creatures-a pattern so identified in = their minds=20 with what they consider to be the necessary cause of the pattern-descent = with=20 modification-that, to them, biological relationship means evolutionary=20 relationship" (Johnson, p. 63, emphasis in original).
The deceptive,=20 smoke-and-mirror language of evolution revolves largely around the=20 classification of living species. Darwinists attempt to explain natural=20 relationships they observe in the animal and plant world by categorizing = animal=20 and plant life according to physical similarities. It could be said that = Darwin's theory is nothing more than educated observance of the obvious; = that=20 is, the conclusion that most animals appear to be related to one another = because=20 most animals have one or more characteristics in common.

For instance, you might have a superficial classification of whales, = penguins=20 and sharks in a group classified as aquatic animals. You might also have = birds,=20 bats and bees grouped as flying creatures. These are not the final=20 classifications because there are many other obvious differences. The = Darwinist=20 approach, however, is to use the obvious general similarities to show, = not that=20 animals were alike in many ways, but that they were related to each = other by=20 descent from common ancestors.

Professor Johnson expresses it this way: "Darwin proposed a = naturalistic=20 explanation for the essentialist features of the living world that was = so=20 stunning in its logical appeal that it conquered the scientific world = even while=20 doubts remained about some important parts of his theory. He theorized = that the=20 discontinuous groups of the living world were the descendants of = long-extinct=20 common ancestors. Relatively closely related groups (like reptiles, = birds, and=20 mammals) shared a relatively recent common ancestor; all vertebrates = shared a=20 more ancient common ancestor; and all animals shared a still more = ancient common=20 ancestor. He then proposed that the ancestors must have been linked to = their=20 descendants by long chains of transitional intermediates, also extinct"=20 (Johnson, p. 64).

Evolutionists exercise selective perception when looking at the=20 evidence-rather like deciding whether to view half a glass of water as = half=20 empty or half full. They choose to dwell on similarities rather than=20 differences. By doing so they lead you away from the truth of the = matter: that=20 similarities are evidence of a common Designer behind the structure and = function=20 of the life forms. Each species of animal was created and designed to = exist and=20 thrive in a particular way. Darwin and the subsequent proponents of the=20 evolutionary view of life focused on similarities within the major=20 classifications of animals and drew the assumption that those = similarities prove=20 that all animals are related to one another through common = ancestors.

However, there are major differences in the life forms on earth. If, = as=20 evolution supposes, all life forms had common ancestors and chains of=20 intermediates linking those ancestors, the fossil record should overflow = with=20 many such intermediate forms between species. But, as we have seen = earlier,=20 paleontologists themselves admit it shows no such thing.

Simple life forms?

Since the fossil record does not support the traditional evolutionary = view,=20 what does it show?

We have already seen how several well-known paleontologists admit = that the=20 fossil record shows the sudden appearance of life forms. As Stephen Jay = Gould=20 puts it: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the = steady=20 transformation of its ancestors: it appears all at once and 'fully = formed'"=20 (Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, May 1977, = pp.=20 13-14).

When we sweep away the evolutionary bias inherent in most views, the = fossil=20 record does not show a gradual ascent from simple to complex. Some of = the=20 earliest fossils found are bacteria. What is interesting about bacteria = is that=20 they are not simple organisms at all.

In reality there are no simple life forms. Modern technology has = shown that=20 even a single cell is extraordinarily complex.

Michael Behe is associate professor of biochemistry at Pennsylvania's = Lehigh=20 University. Noting scientists' changing perceptions of the most = elementary forms=20 of life, he writes: "We humans tend to have a rather exalted opinion of=20 ourselves, and that attitude can color our perception of the biological = world.=20 In particular, our attitude about what is higher and lower in biology, = what is=20 an advanced organism and what is a primitive organism, starts with the=20 presumption that the pinnacle of nature is ourselves . . .=20 Nonetheless, other organisms, if they could talk, could argue strongly = for their=20 own superiority. This includes bacteria, which we often think of as the = rudest=20 forms of life" (Darwin's Black Box, 1996, pp. 69-70).

When Darwin wrote Origin of Species almost a century and a = half ago,=20 scientists did not know nearly as much about the cell (and single-celled = organisms) as we do today. Darwin thought that single-celled organisms = were=20 quite primitive. In fact, at that time many still thought that life = could arise=20 naturally from nonliving matter-for example, that decaying meat = spontaneously=20 produced flies.

Years passed before French scientist Louis Pasteur convincingly = demonstrated,=20 through a series of meticulous experiments, the impossibility of the = notion. Yet=20 even Pasteur had quite a battle with scientists of his day convincing = them that=20 life came only from preexisting life forms.
So Darwin's idea-that=20 single-celled meant simple-was not questioned at the time. Later = discoveries=20 have shown that even the single-celled organisms found early in the = fossil=20 record are far more complex than Darwin and others could have = imagined.

An explosion of life forms

Paleontologists widely consider the Cambrian period, one of the = oldest in=20 their view, to be the earliest in which extensive life forms are = preserved.=20 Since only the remains of marine life are found in Cambrian strata,=20 paleontologists interpret these deposits as dating to a time before land =
animals had evolved.

The Encarta Encyclopedia says of this time: "By the = beginning of the=20 Paleozoic Era, the steadily increasing oxygen content of the atmosphere = and=20 oceans . . . had made it possible for the marine environment = to=20 support new forms of life that could derive energy from respiration. = Although=20 life had not yet invaded dry land or the air, the seas of the Cambrian = Period=20 teemed with a great variety of marine invertebrates, including sponges, = worms,=20 bryozoans ('moss animals'), hydrozoans, brachiopods, mollusks (among = them the=20 gastropods and species ancestral to the nautilus), primitive arthropods = such as=20 the trilobite, and a few species of stalked echinoderms.

"The only plant life of the time consisted of marine algae. Because = many of=20 these new organisms were relatively large, complex marine invertebrates = with=20 hard shells and skeletons of chitin or lime, they had a far better = chance of=20 fossil preservation than the soft-bodied creatures of the previous = Precambrian=20 Era" (1997, "Cambrian Period," emphasis added).

Notice that complex marine invertebrates are found in fossil deposits = from=20 the Cambrian period. Many don't realize it, but even paleontologists = acknowledge=20 that life does not start with only a few simple creatures. At the lowest = levels=20 of the geologic strata, the fossil record consists of complex creatures = such as=20 trilobites.

Time magazine said in a long cover story describing = fossilized=20 creatures found in Cambrian strata: "In a burst of creativity like = nothing=20 before or since, nature appears to have sketched out the blueprints for=20 virtually the whole of the animal kingdom. This explosion of biological=20 diversity is described by scientists as biology's Big Bang" (Madeleine = Nash,=20 "When Life Exploded," Dec. 4, 1995, p. 68).

Contrary to the assumptions of early evolutionists, life does not = start with=20 only a few rudimentary species. Even those who hold to the traditional=20 interpretation of the fossil record admit that it begins with many life = forms=20 similar to those we find today. At the same time, they cannot explain = such a=20 vast "explosion" of life forms in such a short amount of geologic time, = which=20 evolutionary theory predicts would take far longer.

Unanswered questions

Supporters of evolution have had to back down from the claims of = Darwin and=20 others. "Over the decades, evolutionary theorists beginning with Charles = Darwin=20 have tried to argue that the appearance of multicelled animals during = the=20 Cambrian merely seemed sudden, and in fact had been preceded by a = lengthy period=20 of evolution for which the geological record was missing. But this = explanation,=20 while it patched over a hole in an otherwise masterly theory, now seems=20 increasingly unsatisfactory" (Time, p. 68).

Again, the facts etched in stone do not match the assumptions and = predictions=20 of evolutionary thought. Even if we accept the evolutionists' = interpretation of=20 the fossil record, we see life beginning at the lowest levels with = complex=20 creatures, with elaborate organs and other features-but with no known = ancestors.=20 Life does not start as predicted by evolution, with simple forms = gradually=20 changing into more-complex species.

Although toeing the evolutionary line, the Time magazine = article=20 admits: "Of course, understanding what made the Cambrian explosion = possible=20 doesn't address the larger question of what made it happen so fast. Here = scientists delicately slide across data-thin ice, suggesting scenarios = that are=20 based on intuition rather than solid evidence" (Time, p. = 73).

Evolutionists have been known to pointedly criticize Christians = because they=20 don't have scientific proof of miracles recorded in the Bible. Yet here = is a=20 supremely important geological event with far-reaching implications for = the=20 theory of evolution-but one for which scientists have no explanation. Of = course,=20 they must assume that life came from nonlife-in violation of the laws of = biogenesis. But don't their fundamental assumptions also amount to = faith?

A reasonable explanation is that the life forms found in the Cambrian = strata=20 were created by God, who did not work by chance but by design.
The = fossil=20 record is the only objective evidence we can examine to see whether = evolution is=20 true. But, rather than supporting Darwinism, it shows exceedingly = complex=20 organisms in what evolutionists interpret as the oldest fossil strata, = no=20 intermediate forms between species, little if any change in species over = their=20 entire span in the fossil record, and the sudden appearance of new life = forms=20 rather than the gradual change expected by Darwin and his followers.

If we look at the evidence objectively, we realize that the creation = story in=20 Genesis 1-describing the sudden appearance of life forms-is a credible=20 explanation.

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

[ Return to = booklet=20 contents ]

What Does the Fossil Record Show?

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