A Critique of Some Popular Arguments for Evolution

Proponents of the theory of evolution routinely say that there is overwhelming evidence for Darwin’s theory. According to evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, “Evolution is a fact beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact.” A distinction needs to be made between evolution and Darwinism. Evolution can be defined as change over time. It can also be defined as changes within existing species. Both of these definitions are uncontroversial, and all informed people agree on the truth of them. However, evolution defined as universal common ancestry of all living things by means of mutation and natural selection is highly controversial. This form of evolution can be more specifically called Darwinism. It is this type of evolution that is being challenged here.

When Charles Darwin published his book, On the Origin of the Species, in 1859, he changed the nature of studies in biology for the next one hundred and fifty years. Essentially, the book argued that the small-scale changes that occur by natural selection in organisms over short periods of time could by the same genetic process become large changes over long periods of time. The modern version of this theory, which has added the feature of mutations, is called neo-Darwinism. On this view, both harmful mutations as well as beneficial mutations will occur in new organisms. Natural selection will eliminate mutations that are harmful to the organism, and preserve mutations that are beneficial. In such a scenario, an organism would appear to be intelligently designed, but the appearance would only be illusory.

This is the type of evolution that Darwinists need to give evidence for. It requires both evidence that such changes are possible, as well as evidence that such changes have actually happened. When Darwinists say that much evidence exists for evolution they often are referring to the non-controversial evolution within existing species of organisms (micro-evolution). What evidence do they offer for large changes (macro-evolution)?

The more popular “evidences” for Darwinism include fossils, Darwin’s finches, homologies, and DNA similarities. Though more exist, these four examples are some of the most likely arguments a skeptic of Darwinian evolution will face.

Many Darwinists point to the fossil record as evidence for the theory. Unfortunately for Darwinists the fossil record flatly contradicts the predictions of their theory. This point is not even controversial. The “Cambrian explosion” is a geological period where the great majority of currently known phyla appear in the fossil record without an evolutionary history. They diverge slightly into more specific groups, but largely they remain unchanged until the present. Now this is exactly what one would expect to find if a Creator made living organism suddenly and with the ability to adapt to their environments. There are some seemingly transitional fossils, notably the Tiktaalik Rosea, Homo Habilis, and Homo Erectus, but these are the exceptions. It also seems new fossil evidence is making these examples less likely. The vast majority of fossil evidence is contradictory to the predictions of Darwin’s theory, as he himself admitted.

While he was studying the animal life on the Galápagos Islands, Darwin noticed that the finches’ beaks grew larger with new generations. Finches with smaller beaks would die off as they were unable eat as much as finches with larger beaks. Thus the finches with large beaks survived and became more numerous than finches with small beaks. The finches became known as “Darwin’s finches” and have been used as evidence for his theory ever since. Critics of Darwinism have identified that this is good evidence for the uncontroversial idea that changes can happen within an existing type of organism. However, in the Galápagos scenario, the finches stayed finches. Darwin’s finches have been observed for over one hundred years now, and we see that the beak size also gets smaller. There is no net evolutionary change. Rather there is oscillation between larger and smaller beaks size which is most likely due to changes in weather. Some seasons produce food sources which are more favorable to small beaks and others seasons to large beaks depending on the moisture.

Homologies refer to similarities between two or more things. In the case of biology, they refer to similarities between structures in (usually) skeletal systems. Most biology textbooks feature a picture of a horse’s leg, a dolphin’s flipper, a bat’s wings, and a human’s arm side by side. Darwinists point out that although each appendage has a uniquely different function, they share a common structure. They then say this provides evidence of a common ancestor. Evolutionary biologist Tim Berra used cars to illustrate this point. He asked his readers to consider various models of a car lined up chronologically by year. He then said it was obvious that one could see evidence of descent with modifications. Biologist Jonathan Wells has pointed out that this does illustrate descent with modification, but the mechanism of descent is not natural selection. In Berra’s car illustration the mechanism for change is intelligent design. Intelligent human beings mapped out the plans for, and executed the construction of these automobiles. Consequently this has become known as “Berra’s blunder” because he has undermined his own point. If the reason for similarities in the cars was intelligent design, why could not the same be true of similarities between appendages? In fact the evidence does not point one way or the other. Homologies are equally compatible with a creation hypothesis as they are with an evolutionary hypothesis.

Probably the most popular evidence used to support Darwinian evolution is DNA similarities found between chimpanzees and humans. According to Scientific American humans and chimpanzees share 98-99% of their DNA. Richard Dawkins has hailed this discovery as one of the best evidences for Darwinian evolution. However, it seems those numbers were premature. More complete tests have revealed that the human genome is less similar to the chimp genome with 95% being more accurate. A fact that is also seldom mentioned by Darwinists is that the part of the genome that is supposedly 98% similar is for body-building proteins. But, no one disputes that anatomically there are superficial similarities between primates and people. Therefore it is not at all unexpected that human and chimpanzee body-building DNA would be somewhat similar. Humans have approximately the same amount of DNA in common with mice as they do with chimpanzees. This fact is dismissed because it contradicts the idea that the closer DNA similarities are, the closer relation the organisms are.

In summary, the Cambrian era of fossils contradicts the predictions of Darwinism. Darwin’s finches provide an example of natural selection in action, but fail to establish that the process can do any more than create minor changes. Homologies are equally compatible with intelligent design as they are with Darwinism. Finally 99% DNA similarity is not only false and misleading, but also demonstrably irrelevant to the debate of biological origins. Evidence for intelligent design, however, is clearly seen. (Romans 1:20) Even staunch atheists, like Richard Dawkins, have admitted that the world at least looks designed. Dawkins says evolution can explain the appearance of design, but as we have seen that is not evidentially the case. It seems the evidence warrants belief in a Creator. If the evidence is stacked as strongly against the Darwinists as has been shown, why do most scientists still persist in believing it? Perhaps the reason lies in a motive to purposefully exclude the supernatural. Romans 1:22 says, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

Bibliography

Coghlan, Andy. (May, 2002) New Scientist. Retrieved from https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2352-just-2-5-of-dna-turns-mice-into-men/

Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of the Species. Mineola: Dover Publications. 1869.

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. New York: First Mariner Books. 2006.

Dawkins, Richard. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. New York: Free Press. 2009.

Dembski, William and Wells, Jonathan. (July, 2016). EvolutionNews. Retrieved from https://evolutionnews.org/2016/07/why_fossils_can/

DeWitt, David. (April, 2003) Creation. Retrieved from https://creation.com/greater-than-98-chimp-human-dna-similarity-not-any-more

Geisler, Norman and Turek, Frank. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Wheaton: 2004.

McDowell, Sean and Morrow, Jonathan. Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists. Grand Rapids: Kregal Publications. 2010.

Meyer, Stephen. Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. 2013.

Meyer, Stephan. Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. 2009.

Wells, Jonathan. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Lanham: Regenry Publishing. 2006.

Wong, Kate. (September, 2014) Scientific American. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tiny-genetic-differences-between-humans-and-other-primates-pervade-the-genome/