Theory of evolution: Fact or fairy tale?
By Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld
Back in 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a 1981 Louisiana law which mandated
a balanced treatment in teaching evolution and creation in the public schools. The
court decided that the intent of the law "was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint
that a supernatural being created humankind," and therefore violated the First Amendment's
prohibition on a government establishment of religion. In other words, the court
adopted the atheist position that creation is a religious myth.
In speaking for the majority, Justice William J. Brennan wrote, "The legislative
history documents that the act's primary purpose was to change the science curriculum
of public schools in order to provide an advantage to a particular religious doctrine
that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety."
It is surprising that no one saw fit to remind Justice Brennan that some of the
world's greatest scientists were and are devout Christians and that atheism is actually
destroying true science. And we are surprised that no one on the Louisiana side
informed the justice that there is no "factual basis of evolution." It is all theory
and speculation, and each year the theory becomes less and less tenable in the light
of new scientific evidence.
In the light of the court's decision, it is important for us to do what the court
failed to do: review the theory of evolution and determine exactly what are the
First, what exactly is the theory of evolution? For the answer, we must go to
the source: Charles Darwin's famous book, "The Origin of Species," published in
1859. Darwin claimed that the thousands of different species of animals, insects
and plants that exist on earth were not the works of a Divine Creator who made each
species in its present immutable form, as described in Genesis, but were the products
of a very long natural process of development from simpler organic forms to more
complex organic forms.
Thus, according to Darwin, species continue to change, or "evolve," through a
process of natural selection in which nature's harsh conditions permit only the
fittest to survive in more adaptable forms.
These views, of course, had considerable moral and religious implications. Ronald
Clark, in his biography of Darwin, writes,
While Darwin was proud of his theory of natural selection, his most important
single contribution to the evolutionary argument, he saw as one of its main
virtues the fact that it provided a counterblow to the idea of creation.
Darwin also believed that all life originated from a single source -- a kind
of primeval slime in which the first living organisms formed spontaneously out of
non-living matter through a random process. These organisms are supposed to have
branched off into different forms -- plants, insects and animals.
Evolutionists have worked out all sorts of fascinating genealogical diagrams
purporting to show the descent and relationship of one species to another. But what
they don't tell the public is that all of the connections in these family trees
are based on pure speculation and conjecture. Sir Fred Hoyle writes,
"It has been through the device of presenting such diagrams with the presumed
connections drawn in firm solid lines that the general scientific world has been
bamboozled into believing that evolution has been proved. Nothing could be further
from the truth. ... The absence from the fossil record of the intermediate forms
required by the usual evolutionary theory shows that if terrestrial life-forms have
evolved from a common stock, the major branchings must have developed very quickly.
And the major branchings, if they occurred were accompanied by genetic changes that
were not small."
Probably the most controversial aspect of Darwin's theory concerns man's place
in the evolutionary scheme. In his book, "The Descent of Man," published in 1870,
Darwin contended that man and ape were evolutionary cousins with a common ancestor.
When it came to the mind, to intelligence, the gap between man and the other animals,
Darwin believed, was one of degree.
But the fossil record, revealing the different stages of man's evolution from
apelike creature to homo sapiens, has not been found. Paleoanthropologists have
hunted high and low for the missing link or links. But not only have they not found
them, they are now pretty sure that such links do not exist. So instead of admitting
defeat, they've proclaimed victory! According to David Pilbeam, a paleoanthropologist
at Harvard, "We should no longer say that we are descended from apes. We are apes."
All of which means that some scientists are willing to accept a bigger lie if
the smaller one cannot be proven true. Apparently, to some scientists, any lie is
preferable to accepting the possibility that a Creator had something to do with
everything that exists.
The simple fact is that no proof whatever has been found indicating that one
species evolves into another. The fossil record is simply a series of still pictures
of species that existed at one time. They do not show how one species evolves into
another. Transitional fossils have not been found. The fossil record shows new species
appearing suddenly without any ancestors. What scientific investigation indicates
is that the species are immutable and that when mutations occur they do not become
new species. For example, evolutionists have been experimenting with fruit flies
for years in the hope of demonstrating evolution at work. But the fruit flies have
stubbornly refused to develop into anything but more fruit flies, despite all kinds
of stimuli, including radiation. Some mutations have occurred, but nothing to suggest
the beginnings of a new species.
Even Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, a passionate defender of evolution, has written,
"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change."
As Darwin wrote in "The Origin of Species,"
the geological record is extremely imperfect ... and (this fact) will to
a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting
together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated
steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will
rightly reject my whole theory.
As for the theory that life originated by accident in some sort of chemical soup,
it was Louis Pasteur who proved that spontaneous generation is impossible. He contended
that every generation of every living creature had to be derived from a preceding
generation. Life could not have started spontaneously from inorganic matter.
In other words, the spontaneous generation-of-life idea is just wishful thinking
on the part of evolutionists. Dr. Fred Hoyle has calculated that such an accident
had one chance in 10 to the power of 40,000 of occurring, making it beyond possibility.
And now that we know of the enormous complexity of the DNA genetic code and that
the information content of a simple cell has been estimated at around 10 to the
power of 12 bits, we know that random development of living matter is an impossibility.
Consider this fact: there are 2,000 complex enzymes required for a living organism,
but not a single one of them could have formed accidentally. As Fred Hoyle has put
it, "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this (accidental) way
is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might
assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."
To sum it all up: the fossil record does not support the idea of gradual evolution;
it supports creation. Orthodox evolutionists call it "punctuated equilibrium." Nor
does the fossil record support the idea of a common accidental source of all life.
Evidences of common ancestry have not been found. In addition, Louis Pasteur debunked
the idea of spontaneous generation of living organic matter from non-living, inanimate
Also, the recent revelations of the Human Genome Project have shown that man
is programmed from conception to death to go through physical and hormonal changes
that would have required evolution to be able to predict what an organism would
be doing 50 years after birth. And all of this predictable programming would have
had to be neatly packaged in millions of genetic capsules in perfect sequence, all
invisible to the eye. In short, the more we learn about the complexity of life,
the less is the likelihood that it all came about by accident, with no purpose,
and no Creator.
Is the theory of evolution fact or fairy tale? You be the judge