Disclaimer: Although CSSI generally agrees with the thrust of this critique, the ideas expressed are those of the author himself.
The National Geographic journalist takes the viewpoint that evolution is a mature theory, accepted by all knowledgeable scientists. It is assumed that any dissent is only because the ‘lucid explanations’ given by evolutionists have either been misread or ignored by ignorant lay people. This critique will reference many scientists, experts in their fields, who argue with the tenets of evolution and with its ability to adequately explain reality. These scientists expose the shortcomings of supposed evolutionary support, from a century old fraud ‘showing embryonic evolution’ to modern genomic considerations.
The style of this critique is to quote a passage from the National Geographic article (with page reference, e.g. P4:) followed by refuting comments supported by quotations from both evolutionary and non-evolutionary scientists.
Page 4: “Evolution . . . is a theory. . . . It’s a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earth’s living creatures. In the same sense, relativity . . . is “just” a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun . . . is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct.”
There is one obvious distinction here, however, between evolution and the other theories mentioned in the quotation. Evolution is a theory about origins – progress and changes in the very distant past, which cannot be observed, tested, or falsified today. Relativity theory is regularly tested and confirmed (e.g. by receiving and counting cosmic particles arriving on Earth through their half-lives dictate that they could never last long enough to reach our detectors). Earth’s orbital characteristics are confirmed every time a satellite is launched. Continental drift is regularly measured today by lasers. Any scientist can measure the countless properties of atoms any day he wants.
Evolutionists would have us believe that evolution has reached the status of a ‘law of nature.’ However, Werner Gitt, A specialist in information theory, stresses, “If the truth of a statement is verified repeatedly in a reproducible way so that it is regarded as generally valid, we have a natural law.” Theories of science must lend themselves to verification. “Verification means that a statement is tested experimentally. . . . A theory is good if it could be falsified . . . and when it survives all open criticisms and tests, it can be accepted.”
Yes, each of the “theories” given by the author of the article as a comparison can be tested today, tomorrow, and next week. However, any theory of origins cannot be repeatedly tested. That is the obvious distinction that the author does not seem to see.
“I argue that the ‘theory of evolution’ does not make predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms and to show the relationships which such a classification implies. . . . The essence of the argument is that these ‘theories’ are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all.”
“It is manifestly impossible to reproduce in the laboratory the evolution of man from the australopithecine, or of the modern horse from an Eohippus, or of a land vertebrate from a fish-like ancestor. These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible . . . The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted . . . Experimental evolution deals of necessity with only the simplest levels of the evolutionary process, sometimes called microevolution.” It seems that only microevolution fits the definition of a theory. Macroevolution is simply not testable!
“For some time, it has seemed to me that our current methods of teaching Darwinism are suspiciously similar to indoctrination.”
“There is a close similarity, for instance, between the Darwinist and the Marxist . . . Both can take any relevant information whatever, true or false, and reconcile it with their theory. The Darwinist can always make a plausible reconstruction of what took place during the supposed evolution of a species. Any difficulties in reconciling a given kind of natural selection with a particular phase in evolution can be removed by the judicious choice of a correlated character . . . Looked at in this way the teacher of Darwin’s theory corresponds with the latter, since he undoubtedly is concerned to put across the conclusion that natural selection causes evolution, while he cannot be concerned to any great extent with real evidence because there isn’t any.”
Page 6: “The creationist conviction – that God alone, and not evolution, produced humans – has never drawn less than 44 percent . . . Why are there so many antievolutionists? Scriptural literalism can only be part of the answer.”
Agreed. The author adds political lobbying and ignorance of “lucidly explained” evolutionary theory. It seems that some scientists and journalists are unaware of the assumptions within the evolutionary establishment. Each person carries with him a worldview – either consciously or unconsciously. That worldview, if correct, agrees with knowledge gained in whatever discipline. An incorrect worldview hinders us from seeing “truth” in its fullness. Specifically, extrapolating variation within kinds or species (micro-evolution) to support evolution between progressively more complex kinds (macro-evolution) shows a disregard for this important distinction. Assuming that supernatural causes cannot be considered is limiting research to a naturalistic, and incorrect, worldview that at least 44 percent of the population is unable to accept.
“To understand scientific development, it is not enough merely to chronicle new discoveries and inventions. We must also trace the succession of worldviews.”
“Contemporary historians argue that it is impossible to neatly separate out something called “pure” science from the “external” religious and metaphysical influences that supposedly “contaminate” it. Fundamental decisions within science are necessarily affected by extra-scientific commitments. The facts that a researcher considers scientifically interesting in the first place, the kind of research he undertakes, the hypotheses he is willing to entertain, the way he interprets his results, and the extrapolations he draws to other fields – all depend upon prior conceptions of what the world is like.”
Many people still retain a worldview that is flavoured by our Judeo-Christian heritage – one in which God is the creative force behind the order, beauty, and complexity of this universe. This perspective fits well with the observed universe. The evidence for evolution is far less adequate (as will be seen as the major supporting pillars given in this article are discussed below). It does not give the obvious fit with the data as the author so hopefully expects.
Page 8: “Evolution is both a beautiful concept and an important one, more crucial nowadays to human welfare, to medical science, and to our understanding of the world than ever before. It’s also deeply persuasive.”
One of the reasons that evolution is NOT accepted wholeheartedly by people is that it does NOT give us a comfortable foundation for “human welfare.” If we are the product of random chance, the result of eons of death and struggle, then human morality is hollow. Sex is king. We live for our genes. Trust, compassion and caring are signs of weakness. Preying on others epitomizes ‘survival of the fittest’, while praying for others encourages the unfit and aged, those who should be left to the wolves
Yes, it is crucial that we correctly understand our world. We are stewards of God’s creation, accountable to Him for how we treat each other, and the resources He has provided. In our humanness we recognize, however faintly, that morality and beauty, love and trust, harmony and truthfulness are qualities that raise us above the dog-eat-dog rule of tooth and claw. No theory, no matter how ‘beautiful a concept’ can be persuasive enough to rob us of our awareness of what makes us human! Thus, our human nature keeps even non-Christians from wholeheartedly accepting evolution, with its (im)moral ramifications.
The demands of evolution exclude faith in any higher Being. “In the evolutionary system of thought there is no longer need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created; it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul, as well as brain and body. So did religion.”
Not only does evolution remove God, it replaces God with itself as the ultimate god of the universe, to which we all must bow. “Is evolution a theory, a system or a hypothesis? It is much more: it is a general condition to which all theories all systems, all hypotheses must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light illuminating all facts, a curve that all lines must follow.”
It would take a lot of good, unequivocal evidence to cause people to make such a change in their belief system. It would be equally hard to convince people that death and struggle are the gods of our upward progress, and the guide for our morality and sense of worth in this universe. If people could be persuaded that strong evidence for evolution exists, they might reconsider their worldview. Perhaps the lack of universal support is a consequence of the paltry evidence that we have for evolution.
Page 9: “So much for one part of the evolutionary process, known as anagenesis, during which a single species is transformed. But there’s also a second part, known as speciation. Genetic changes sometimes accumulate within an isolated segment of a species, . . . At a certain point it becomes irreversibly distinct – that is, so different that its members can’t interbreed with the rest. Two species now exist where formerly there was one. Darwin called that splitting . . . the ‘principle of divergence’.”
Anagenesis may be called “micro-evolution”, that is, the variation within an inter-breeding species. This is supported in the varieties of roses or dogs (or whatever) that are present today. No thinking person denies this. However, such variation comes at a cost. The original gene pool of each species (kind) contains incredible potential to adapt to changing environments. Each actual change comes from a reduction of some of that potential.
Some dark-skinned people lose their ability to create fair-skinned offspring. Some fair-skinned people lose their ability to create dark-skinned offspring. Carried to an extreme, some animals may have lost their ability to reproduce with others of their original kind. This is not a source of ever more complex divergence of species! It cannot be used to argue that a cow can become a whale, or an ape can become a human. It does explain the origin of pigmy horses, and of albino flamingos – both of which have reduced potential to flourish in their natural environments.
There is no evidence of species divergence that has resulted in a new species that is more complex. The evolutionary tree has gaps at the juncture of every branch because there are no diverging examples to fill them, nor can there be!
As Charles Darwin wrote, “Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”
Speaking of his book entitled Evolution, Dr. Colin Patterson wrote, “I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . . . I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”
Page 9: “He [Darwin] may have delayed, too, because of his anxiety about announcing a theory that seemed to challenge conventional religious beliefs – in particular, the Christian beliefs of his wife, Emma. Darwin himself quietly renounced Christianity during his middle age, and later described himself as an agnostic. . . Darwin avoided flaunting his lack of religious faith, at least partly in deference to Emma. And she prayed for his soul.”
Speaking of his life before he married, Darwin said, “On 7 March 1837 I took lodgings in Great Marlborough Street in London and remained there for nearly two years until I was married. . . . During these two years I was lead to think much about religion . . . But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament, from its manifestly false history of the world . . . was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus, or the beliefs of any barbarian. . . . Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true, for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father, brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.” It seems that Darwin did not ‘quietly renounce Christianity during his middle age’. It was his agnosticism that gave him motivation to develop evolution!
Thus is the worldview of Darwin throughout his adult life. This was written 22 years before he released his book. Richard Dawkins, a staunch British supporter of standard evolution, says, “Darwin’s own bulldog, Huxley, as Eldredge reminds us again, warned him against his insistent gradualism, but Darwin had good reason. His theory was largely aimed at replacing creationism as an explanation of how living complexity could arise out of simplicity. . . . Gradualness is of the essence. In the context of the fight against creationism, gradualism is more or less synonymous with evolution itself. If you throw out gradualism, you throw out the very thing that makes evolution more plausible than creation.”
Darwin had a purpose for introducing evolution. Perhaps Satan himself encouraged its acceptance. Where evolution succeeds, belief in the Christian worldview, and in Christ Himself flounders!
Page 9: “The evidence, as he [Darwin] presented it, mostly fell within four categories: biogeography, paleontology, embryology, and morphology.” Each of these is then defined in the article.
Page 15: “Biogeography is the study of the geographical distribution of living creatures.” As Darwin found, various distinct groups of finches had dissimilar beaks and feeding habits. But, notice that they were still all finches. This study establishes beyond any doubt that living groups (kinds) have incredible ability to diversify. Breeding of cattle, horses, fruit flies, and dogs also show this stunning array. What fantastic support for micro-evolution – variation within kinds. There is a total lack of similar support for any upward change from one living form to another!
Marjorie Grene, an eminent philosopher of science, says: “Geographical distribution was one of the classic supports for descent with modification. . . . But birds do fly and so . . . do fishes swim. Why no dispersal, ever? Among, for example, North and South American fauna or Hawaiian drosophila it seems pretty well established.” Dr. Grene is skeptical of the importance given to geographical isolation within the standard evolutionary model.
Speaking of Darwin’s finches, “it has been found in recent years that such variation in the finches can take place in just a very few years, as in the case of the peppered moth or in pesticide-resistant insects. The finches are all still inter-fertile, and so continue to constitute one species.” Variation within kinds is everywhere. Change from one kind to another, more complex one, is non-existent
Page 9: “Paleontology investigates extinct life-forms, as revealed in the fossil record.”
Stephen J. Gould comments on the weight of fossil evidence against standard evolutionary theory: “New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.” In the same article, he reveals that: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils…. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth…. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’.”
Paleontology has not supported macro-evolution. Basic living forms change size and they adapt to differing habitats, but they do not transform into other beings.
Page 9: “Embryology examines the revealing stages of development (echoing earlier stages of evolutionary history) that embryos pass through before birth or hatching.”
Page 13: “Why does the embryo of a mammal pass through stages resembling stages of the embryo of a reptile?’ … because, Darwin wrote, ‘the embryo is the animal in its less modified state” and that state “reveals the structure of its progenitor.”
The “Biogenic Law” states that evolution can be seen in the development of higher order embryos, as they “recapitulate” the forms of simple organisms, fish, reptiles, and the like. It was formulated by Ernst Haeckel in 1866 to support Darwin’s theory. “Haeckel produced the well-known illustration showing embryos at several stages of development. In this he had to play fast and loose with the facts by altering several drawings in order to make them appear more alike and conform to the theory. Haeckel was a scientific draftsman of no mean talent and good optical equipment was available for his use. Yet the alterations were deliberate, because he began with accurate drawings that had been published several years before.”
The details of his tampering were disclosed by Wilhelm His, and catalogued in 1874. W. His “concluded by saying that one who engages in such blatant fraud forfeits all respect.” Human embryos do not show “gill slits”. They are folds that become part of the face and are not connected in any way with our respiratory system. All other “similarities” with lower forms have been debunked.
Lest it be suggested that the reference to a German document of 1874 could have easily been overlooked, note the following forceful comment by Sir Gavin de Beer of the British Natural History Museum. In 1958 he wrote, “Seldom has an assertion like that of Haeckel’s ‘theory of recapitulation’, facile tidy, and plausible, widely accepted without critical examination, done so much harm to science.” In the same book he also wrote, “Recapitulation . . . does not take place.” Why would any informed author use “evidence” in 2004 that had already been discredited by 1874?
Page 9: “Morphology is the science of anatomical shape and design.”
Page 13: “Living creatures can be easily sorted into a hierarchy of categories – not just species but genera, families, orders, whole kingdoms – based on which anatomical characters they share and which they don’t.”
Professor David H. A. Fitch, of the Department of Biology of New York University, explains “morphology” in relation to “homologous” structures, by saying that Darwin’s morphological evidence for evolution answers the question: “How to explain similarity in Body Plan”. This evidence shows that “members of a group share homologous characters. In these groups, structures for very different functions are often constructed on the same underlying pattern.”
A further explanation of morphology is given in the University of British Columbia biology 336 course:
Look at some of the words and phrases used by these authors: “anatomical shape and design”, “similarities in Body Plan”, “organisms were created following a common plan or archetype”, “each species is unique”. It seems that secular scientists cannot keep themselves from using “Christian” language. It seems more than reasonable to attribute ‘design’ features, ‘Body Plan’, and a ‘common plan’ to a Creator. Using the argument for a common ancestor (that has never been found) is an attempt to avoid the more obvious conclusion – a common Creator. It makes sense that God would use common plans that worked well in several of His creatures. Why ‘re-invent the wheel’ in each creation?
Note the phrase “each species is unique”. If evolution were true, this is the last thing we would expect. Every fossil or organism should fall into a fuzzy continuum. No classification system should work beyond perhaps differences due to water, air and land habitats.
Note that “the design plans for a Honda Civic and a Honda Prelude might be similar.” This fits the Creation model very well! Honda makes both models. They have a common creator. Not only that, but they are both variations on their ‘car’ pattern. This does not explain “homology” or “morphology” at all. However, even if we loosen this to Ford trucks and Honda cars, the concept of “common design” still speaks of a creator who used common concepts, not an evolution from one into the other!
“It is also hard to make sense of the fact that homologous structures can be inefficient or even useless. Why would certain cave-dwelling fish have degenerate eyes that cannot see?” The term “degenerate eyes” says it all. The genetic code allows much variation, but mutations most often reduce the amount of information. Resulting organisms lack some expected trait, such as having eyes that cannot see. Also, omitting reference to The Fall described in the Bible leaves secular scientists with an incorrect worldview. They have no reason to expect to see degeneration. They insist on interpreting the evidence as upward progress, even when such does not exist.
The references to “useless traits” seem arrogant. Any organ that is not completely understood is called “useless”. Only later it comes to light that an appendix contributes to our immune system, or that the human ‘tail bone’ supports skeletal muscles, etc. God’s thoughts are not our thoughts. He has graced us with the ability to understand much of His creation. However, ‘useless traits’ do have a purpose in God’s mind, whether He has yet allowed us to see it or not.
It seems that, upon careful examination, morphology supports Creation in every case!
Page 12: “Paleontology reveals a similar clustering pattern in the dimension of time. The vertical column of geologic strata, laid down by sedimentary processes over the eons . . . represents a tangible record showing which species lived when. Less ancient layers of rock lie atop more ancient ones. . . What Darwin noticed about this record is that closely allied species tend to be found adjacent to one another in successive strata.”
First, the ‘eons of time’ accepted without question should be questioned:
“Uniformitarian principles simply cannot account for most of the major geologic features and formations. For instance, there is the vast Tibetan plateau that consists of sedimentary deposits, which are thousands of feet thick, located presently at an elevation of three miles above sea level. The Karoo formation of Africa contains an estimated 800 billion vertebrate animals! The herring fossil bed of California contains approximately one billion fish within a four square mile area. The uniformitarian concept is equally incapable of explaining the Columbia plateau in northwestern united States which is an incredible lava plateau several thousand feet thick covering an area of 200,000 square miles. . .
“The universal presence of fossils in sedimentary deposits is, indeed, conclusive proof of rapid burial and formation. . . otherwise they would decay or be destroyed by scavengers. . . This suggests that the geologic column was formed rapidly, not gradually over aeons of time. Thus, the geologic evidence supports a cataclysmic interpretation rather than the uniformitarian explanation.
“The uniformitarian assumption that millions of years of geological work . . . would be required to explain structures such as the American Grand Canyon for instance, is called into serious question by the explosion of Mount St. Helens in the state of Washington on the 18th of May 1980.” In six minutes 400 square kilometers of forest were destroyed. In one day a mini Grand Canyon was formed!
“Thus, the earth’s rock strata (or ‘geologic column’, insofar as it exists), far from testifying to uniformity, evolution and an ancient earth, actually points to universal hydrological catastrophism, which can more readily be understood in terms of a recent creation and flood.”
The evidence of similar species in similar layers is more obviously the result of global flood trauma than uniformitarian layering!
Page 12: “In North America, for example, a vaguely horselike creature known as hyracotherium was succeeded by Orohippus, then Epihippus, then Mesohippus, which in turn were succeeded by a variety of horsey American critters. . . By five million years ago they had nearly all disappeared, leaving behind Dinohippus, which was succeeded by Equus, the modern genus of horse.”
“In recent years . . . the horse tree has become a bush, with no one horse clearly descended from any other. The first in the series, Eohippus, was probably more like a hyrax than a horse, and should not even be included in the group at all. He is now again being called Hyracotherium. . . Hyracotherium is clearly much the same as our modern hyrax. . . As far as the intermediate horses are concerned (Mesohippus, Miohippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus, etc.), it is now well-known that they no longer diagram into a tree, but a ‘bush’. There is much overlapping, and each is separated from the others without intermediate forms between.”
“The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.”
“The sad fact remains that what has actually been done is to select the fossil data to fit the theory, and this cannot be considered scientific proof.”
Again, it is surprising that the author would use the horse as his prime example of evolution! The size changes, the number of toes, and the number of ribs in each fossil vary in such a way that no ‘line of descent’ can be made!
Page 13: “. . . a pattern of tiered resemblances . . . isn’t naturally present among other collections of items. You won’t find anything equivalent if you try to categorize rocks, or musical instruments, or jewelry.”
But music does fit a pattern of tiered resemblances! Individual instruments are grouped into brass, woodwinds, strings, percussion, etc. because of their similar characteristics. Music itself also fits a pattern of tiered resemblances – from modern pop to classical to ancient and eastern music styles. The reason that music does fit so well is that it has been created by humans for the purpose of our listening pleasure. The common purpose gave rise to common approaches in different cultures. There is variation within each ‘kind’, but each ‘kind’ is still distinct. Also, there is creation of each ‘kind’. This sounds a lot like the variation within micro-evolution, and the creation of each ‘kind’ for a purpose!
Page 13: “Taxonomic classification. . . had been founded in its modern form back in 1735 by the Swedish naturalist Carolus Linnaeus. Linnaeus showed how species could be systematically classified, according to their shared similarities, but he worked from creationist assumptions that offered no material explanation for the nested pattern he found.”
Yes, Linnaeus worked from a Christian understanding, as did almost every early scientist. However, he did have an explanation for what he found. First, the very ability to create separate definitions of living organisms was premised on their distinct creation by God. Gradual evolution would have resulted in gradual changes among all living organisms, which would have made classification a useless task.
Second, God implanted the ability for each ‘kind’ to adapt to its environmental changes. Thus variation within species is to be expected. The degeneration of one species into two inferior species, through isolation of environment could also be expected. This fit the data.
Third, it is reasonable for God to use similar forms for similar functions in different ‘kinds’. It makes sense for a flipper to have similar skeletal structure to the foot of a land animal, etc. Again, as fossil classification continued, this fit the data.
So much for “no material explanation for the nested pattern he found”.
Page 20: “Vestigial characteristics are still another form of morphological evidence, illuminating to contemplate because they show that the living world is full of small, tolerable imperfections. Why do male mammals (including human males) have nipples? Why do some snakes . . . carry the rudiments of a pelvis and tiny legs buried inside their sleek profiles? Why do certain species of flightless beetle have wings, sealed beneath wing covers that never open? Darwin raised all these questions, and answered them, in The Origin of Species. Vestigial structures stand as remnants of the evolutionary history of a lineage.”
“In the first edition of the Origin, Darwin spoke of rudimentary, atrophied, or aborted organs in the sense of their being regressive; that is, they had at one time been fully functional but through disuse had become smaller or even absent. Later researchers, such as Wiedersheim, realized that a small and useless organ might, in fact, be progressive or nascent – that is, might be on the evolutionary road to becoming fully functional. This led then to the difficulty of knowing when a seemingly useless organ was either regressive or progressive.”
In 1895, “Robert Wiedersheim, a Darwinian enthusiast . . . listed eighty-six human organs that he claimed were mere vestiges, no longer having any useful function. In addition, he had a shorter list of organs, which he claimed were retrogressive – that is, they were in the early stages of being atrophied.”
“As our knowledge has increased the list of vestigial structures has decreased. Wiedersheim could list about 100 in humans, recent authors usually list four or five. Even the current short list of vestigial structures in humans is questionable. . . Anatomically, the appendix shows evidence of a lymphoid function. . . The coccyx serves as a point of insertion for several muscles and ligaments including the gluteus maximus. . . . The semilunar fold of the eye . . . aids in the cleansing and lubrication of the eyeball.”
“Abstract. An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures and an analysis of the nature of the argument, leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.”
No doctor today speculates on vestigial organs. Medical advancement has shown him that labeling an organ ‘vestigial’ is really a statement of ignorance. As medicine advances, such organs disappear from the list - and along with them, any support for evolution they supposedly supplied.
Before considering the individual examples given in the article, consider the following argument:
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, 1744 – 1829, proposed a mechanism whereby one species, finding itself in a new environment, could develop into a new species, perfectly adapted to the new environment. From a developed habit, such as reaching for ever higher leaves, an animal could develop a long neck (Giraffe). That acquired habits could not affect inheritance was easy to establish. Jewish circumcision, practiced for four thousand years, did not change Jewish anatomy. In 1891 the (901) tails of five generations of mice showed that every mouse born had a normal tail. Among other evidence, this finished Lamarckian ideas – except for evolutionary evangelists, immune to evidence!
The very idea of vestigial organs is Lamarckian. It suggests that the disuse of an organ will cause it to atrophy – in the next generation! Circumcision, Chinese foot binding, and the tailless mice speak otherwise. The lack of an oil gland in the fantail pigeon can be reversed by allowing continued breeding, which recreates the common rock pigeon, complete with oil gland. It is evident that the coding for that gland is always present. It is suppressed by selective breeding, but not eliminated.
As Lamarckian “inheritance of acquired characteristics” died in the 1800s, so should have the idea of vestigial organs! Whether atrophied from disuse, or progressive signs of newly evolving organs, neither can ever result from the transmission of genetic information.
Male mammalian nipples are given as an example of a vestigial organ. The genome for males and females is virtually identical. Certain chromosomes create the sex hormones that turn on or turn off certain functions. For example, an over-abundance of estrogen in males causes them to develop breasts, and even lactate. Nipples are functional in mammals, just appropriately repressed in males.
The snake pelvis and rudimentary “legs” are also mentioned. Yet, as long ago as 1978 Carpenter said, “The vestigial posterior appendages (spurs or claws)” are used in male combat. Similar studies have shown ‘vestigial limbs’ used to grasp the female during copulation.
Flightless beetle wings and sightless fish with rudimentary eyes enclosed behind flesh are examples of degeneration. Living species may lose the ability to fly or see or whatever. In our Christian perspective of a sin soaked earth, such degeneration is to be expected. Only last year, John & Coreen Mutch were surprised when their new son, Cody, was born without eyes. The sockets are normal, but the coding for the actual eyes did not express itself! This loss of sight is not evolution. It is simply a product of a faulty gene combination.
Vestigial organs do not exist. They never have. However, pursuit of this false theory, a direct consequence of belief in Darwin’s theory of evolution, has had it effects: “To be as charitable as possible, it may be argued that Darwin simply had a theory about rudimentary organs that has since been shown to be incorrect, and that no harm has been done. It would not be true to say, however, that the theory has passed through history without causing harm. It has, in fact, been directly responsible for needless suffering at the hands of the medical profession for thousands who can only be described as victims of a delusion.”
By early nineteen hundreds, the medical community was convinced that “man’s alimentary system . . . must be ill-adapted to deal with the dietary requirements of civilized man.” For example, Dr. Lane “performed a colectomy, or removal of the entire colon. In his enthusiasm Lane believed that this surgery was also of value in the treatment of duodenal ulcers, bladder disease, rheumatoid arthritis, tuberculosis, schizophrenia, high blood pressure, and a host of other ailments. Lane alone performed more than a thousand colectomies (as did others), leaving untold numbers of victims . . . The appendix was, of course, fair game in this drive to eradicate the troublesome vestiges . . . All this needless suffering, we are reminded, resulted from Darwin’s notion of vestigial organs, which he required as evidence for his theory of evolution. This theory is still central to biological thinking, and we may only surmise what other medical practices are being carried out today based on this premise.” Evolution is not just an incorrect worldview. It has unfortunate consequences in our lives. It has killed and maimed thousands. Its consequences in our spiritual lives can be eternal!
Page 20: “Today the same four branches of biological science from which Darwin drew – biogeography, paleontology, embryology, morphology – embrace an ever growing body of supporting data. In addition to these categories we now have others: population genetics, biochemistry, molecular biology, and, most recently, the whiz-bang field of machine-driven genetic sequencing known as genomics.”
For these ‘same four branches of biological science’, the growing evidence is amassed against the possibility of evolution, not for it. The preceding paragraphs amply support this.
The author of the article clusters population genetics, biochemistry, molecular biology and genetic sequencing together. He states that all these are “contributing further to the certainty that Darwin was right.” (Current article, p20.) However, he gives no supportive examples at all! Perhaps there are none. Consider the following quotes from experts in these fields:
“Mutations occur at random, not because it would be convenient to have one. Any chance alteration in the composition and properties of a highly complex operating system is not likely to improve its manner of operation, and most mutations are disadvantageous for this reason. There is a delicate balance between an organism and its environment which a mutation can easily upset. One could as well expect that altering the position of the foot brake or the gas pedal at random would improve the operation of an automobile.”
“Our first difficulty is that . . . all mutations seem to be in the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organisms. I doubt if among the many thousands of known mutant types one can be found which is superior to the wild type in its normal environment; only very few can be named which are superior to the wild type in a strange environment.”
“For any acceptable theory of the mechanism of evolution, a great number of fully viable hereditary variations is necessary. Mutation does produce hereditary changes, but the mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect.”
“The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins’ amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of evolutionary series.
“Thousands of different sequences, protein and nucleic acid, have now been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any sequence been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor of any other sequence.
“There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available one century ago it would have been seized upon with devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted.”
Enjoy this one. Apparently humans are most closely related to a kangaroo, or lemur, pig, or gorilla. Take your choice! “The cytochrome c of man differs by 14 amino acids from that of the horse, and by only 8 from that of the kangaroo. Similar facts are found in the case of hemoglobin; the b chain of this protein in man differs from that of the lemurs by 20 amino acids, by only 14 from that of the pig, and by only 1 from that of the gorilla. The situation is practically the same for other proteins.”
“Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to paleontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist I should be elated. Instead it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so many in fact that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message.
“The early existence of some molecules of highly complex function cannot be denied and the question arises whether there are any molecules that have not already been in existence at the time of the origins of life.
“The neo-Darwinian hypothesis, in fact, allows one to interpret simple sequence differences such as to represent complex processes, namely gene duplications, mutations, deletions and insertions, without offering the slightest possibility of proof, either in practice or in principle”
Could scientists be speaking out of ignorance? “The most obvious comment to make about the genomes of higher organisms is that biologists understand the function of only a tiny proportion of the DNA in them, namely, the genes that code for proteins. In the human genome, for instance, these protein-coding genes constitute marginally more than 1 percent of all the DNA. The rest of the genome is the target of much speculation, but few secure answers.”
“Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.”
There are some very big problems that evolutionists have not succeeded in answering: “Biologists have an adolescent fascination with sex. Like teenagers, they are embarrassed by the subject because of their ignorance. What sex is, why it evolved and how it works are the biggest unsolved problems in biology. Sex must be important as it is so expensive. If some creatures can manage with just females, so that every individual produces copies of herself, why do so many bother with males? A female who gave them up might be able to produce twice as many daughters as before; and they would carry all her genes. Instead, a sexual female wastes time, first in finding a mate and then in producing sons who carry only half of her inheritance. We are still not certain why males exist; and why, if we must have them at all, nature needs so many. Surely, one or two would be enough to impregnate all the females but, with few exceptions, the ratio of males to females remain stubbornly equal throughout the living world.”
For further excellent reflection, check out the following comments and books:
Page 20: “Beside the lecturer’s photo was a drawing of a dinosaur. ‘Free pizza following the evening service,’ said a small line at the bottom. Dinosaurs, biblical truth, and pizza: something for everybody.”
The author’s biased opinion against anything supernatural is obvious. Perhaps this explains his blindness to objective consideration of evidence of origins.
Page 20: “The resemblance between our 30,000 human genes and those 30,000 mousy counterparts . . . represents another form of homology.”
Two comments: The DNA related to proteins and genes is a miniscule part of the entire code. A 99% similarity in this 1 percent may not mean much. Also, similarity is not the appropriate criterion. Note the following two sentences:
“Woman, without her, man is a failure.” “Woman, without her man, is a failure.”
By moving one comma, the sentence is changed to say exactly the opposite thing! Two characters have been changed in a sequence of 37 (including spaces). This 2.7% change reversed the meaning! Similarly, if I were to list a 100 digit secret code, but incorrectly typed one digit, the result would be entirely different. It is the differences that matter– and tiny differences often make a vast difference!
“DNA similarities between human and other living organisms …is alleged to be evidence for evolution. However, again this is not a direct finding, but an interpretation of the data.
“A common designer is another interpretation that makes sense of the same data. An architect commonly uses the same building material for different buildings, and the carmaker commonly uses the same parts in different cars. So we shouldn’t be surprised if a designer for life used the same biochemistry and structures in many different creatures. Conversely, if all living organisms were totally different, this might look like there were many designers instead of one.
“Another good thing about the common biochemistry is that we can gain nourishment from other living things. Our digestive systems can break down food into its building blocks, which are then used either as fuel or for our own building blocks.
“Since DNA contains the coding for structures and biochemical molecules, we should expect the most similar creatures to have the most similar DNA. Apes and humans are both mammals, with similar shapes, so have similar DNA. We should expect humans to have more DNA similarities with another mammal like a pig than with a reptile like a rattlesnake. And this is so. Humans are very different from yeast but they have some biochemistry in common, so we should expect human and yeast DNA to be only slightly similar.
“So the general pattern of similarities need not be explained by common-ancestry evolution. Furthermore, there are some puzzling anomalies for an evolutionary explanation – similarities between organisms that evolutionists don’t believe are closely related. For example, hemoglobin, the complex molecule that carries oxygen in blood and results in its red color, is found in vertebrates. But it is also found in some earthworms, starfish, crustaceans, mollusks, and even in some bacteria. Human lysozyme is closer to chicken lysozyme than to that of any other mammal. The a-hemoglobin of crocodiles has more in common with that of chickens (17.5%) than that of vipers (5.6%), their fellow reptiles. An antigen receptor protein has the same unusual single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this cannot be explained by a common ancestor of sharks and camels.
“Similarities between human and ape DNA are often exaggerated. This figure was not derived from a direct comparison of the sequences. Rather, the original paper (by Sibley and Ahlquist, 1987) inferred 97 percent similarity between human and chimp DNA from a rather crude technique called DNA hybridization. In this technique, single strands of human DNA were combined with DNA from chimpanzees and other apes. However, there are other things beside similarity that affect the degree of hybridization.
“A point often overlooked is the vast differences between different kinds of creatures. Every creature has an encyclopedic information content, so even a small percentage difference means that a lot of information would be required to turn one kind into another. Since humans have an amount of information equivalent to a thousand 500-page books, a 4 percent difference amounts to 40 large books.
“That is, random mutation plus natural selection is expected to generate the information equivalent of 12 million words arranged in a meaningful sequence. This is an impossibility even if we grant the 10 million years asserted by evolutionists. Population genetics calculations show that animals with human-like generations times of about 20 years could substitute no more than about 1,700 mutations in that time.” 
Page 21: “No aspect of biomedical research seems more urgent today than the study of microbial diseases. And the dynamics of those microbes within human bodies, within human populations, can only be understood in terms of evolution. . . . By natural selection they acquire resistance to drugs that should kill them. They evolve.”
Notice that AIDS is still AIDS. Ebola is still Ebola. SARS is still SARS. No evolution from one “species” to another has occurred.
“What has happened in many cases is that some bacteria already had the genes for resistance to the antibiotics. In fact, some bacteria obtained by thawing sources which had been frozen before man developed antibiotics have shown to be antibiotic-resistant. When antibiotics are applied to a population of bacteria, those lacking resistance are killed, and any genetic information they carry is eliminated. The survivors carry less information, but they are all resistant. The same principle applies to rats and insects “evolving” resistance to pesticides. Again, the resistance was already there, and creatures without resistance are eliminated.
“In other cases, antibiotic resistance is the result of a mutation, but in all known cases, this mutation has destroyed information. It may seem surprising that destruction of information can sometimes help. But one example is resistance to the antibiotic penicillin. Bacteria normally produce an enzyme, penicillinase, which destroys penicillin. The amount of penicillinase is controlled by a gene. There is normally enough produced to handle any penicillin encountered in the wild, but the bacterium is overwhelmed by the amount given to patients. A mutation disabling this controlling gene results in much more penicillinase being produced. This enables the bacterium to resist the antibiotic. But normally, this mutant would be less fit, as it wastes resources by producing unnecessary penicillinase.”
Page 25: “Gingerich and others have found dozens of intermediate forms – missing links that are no longer missing.”
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. . . Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.
“The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism.
“It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species or fossil ‘group’ can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another. The ancestor-descendant relationship may only be assumed to have existed in the absence of evidence indicating otherwise.
“The history of comparative biology teaches us that the search for ancestors is doomed to ultimate failure, thus, with respect to its principal objective, this search is an exercise in futility. Increased knowledge of suggested ‘ancestors’ usually shows them to be too specialized to have been direct ancestors of anything else.”
Into this background of the struggle to find ‘missing links’ where none are to found steps Dr. Gingerich: “Not far from the Khyber Pass in the arid Himalayan foothills of Pakistan, University of Michigan paleontologist Philip D. Gingerich found a skull and several teeth and came to the startling conclusion that they belonged to an ancient walking whale . . . Clue: the teeth were almost identical with those from known primitive whale fossils found on the west coast of India.
. . . Gingerich is returning to the Himalayan foothills this fall to find more fossils so he can piece together a clearer picture of the whale’s evolutionary history. Most of all, he hopes to find leg bones belonging to the whale species.”
Apparently Dr. Gingerich is prone to ‘startling’ discoveries about whales, not the least of which is the ‘startling’ discovery that an anklebone suddenly convinced him that whales are related to antelopes (Current article, p31). One might wonder whether the goal of evolutionary discoveries clouds the reason of some researchers, and of some journalists who wish they were right!
Page 30: “Among most forms of living creatures, evolution proceeds slowly – too slowly to be observed by a single scientist within a research lifetime. But science functions by inference, not just by direct observation, and the inferential sorts of evidence such as paleontology and biogeography are no less cogent simply because they’re indirect.”
The author seems to equate “inferred” evidence and “direct” evidence as equally valid. However, only “direct” evidence is accepted at face value by most scientists. “Inferred” evidence is dependent on the scientist’s personal worldview or bias. An evolutionary bias naturally seeks evolutionary explanations. Once established in a position that accepts funding from sources that expect an evolutionary bias, such scientists become increasingly blind to any evidence, inferred or otherwise, that points to any non-evolutionary conclusion. Admitting to such would risk their reputation, and their financial future.
Page 30: “Despite the difficulties, Rice and Salt seem to have recorded a speciation event, or very nearly so, in their extended experiment on fruit flies. From a small stock of mated females they eventually produced two distinct fly populations adapted to different habitat conditions, which the researchers judged ‘incipient species.’”
Note the guarded language here. “Despite the difficulties” the researchers have “very nearly so” produced an “incipient species”. All their samples still contain fruit flies. There is no mention as to whether their populations can still inter-breed. Such inter-breeding would certainly move the offspring back toward the “normal” fruit fly population variety. To use this as a prime evolutionary example, we need more details about the event, and duplicated results by others. Then we need to see fruit flies enter the experiment, and a different species exit the experiment!
The evidence from “35 generations of fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster,” and “20,000 generations of evolution in the bacterium Escherichia coli” (Current article, p30) still resulted in recognizable fruit flies and Escherichia coli. Variation within species: Yes. Evolution from one species to another: No.
Page 31: Gingerich found fossils with “nostrils shifted backward on the snout, halfway to the blowhole position on a modern whale.”
Shifting a nostril that sucks air into lungs does not convert it into a whale’s blowhole, any more than elongating a finger shows that it is a wing. All the inter-related parts need to be changed at exactly the same time if the creature is to continue surviving. This all-at-once change is not gradual evolution. The whale still looks much more like a different created kind.
Page 31: “Suddenly he realized how closely whales are related to antelopes.” One fossil of a similar (homologous) anklebone spawned this revelation. It takes much more than one similarly shaped bone to convince any layperson that a whale is related to an antelope. When the “inferred” evidence even slightly suggests an evolutionary link, an evolutionist grabs it with “startling” regularity. Yet, much stronger “inferred” evidence that suggests supernatural creation is rejected out of hand. Still the author of the article concludes, “This is how science is supposed to work.”
Page 31: “Phil Gingerich is a reverent empiricist. He’s not satisfied until he sees solid data. . . for him, Gingerich said, it’s ‘a spiritual experience.’”
“The evidence is there,” he added. “It’s buried in the rocks of ages.”
Perhaps the author is naïve enough to hope that a few “spiritual” words might convince skeptics that evolution is correct. Perhaps he has exposed his own limitation. “He’s not satisfied until he sees solid data.” No spiritual input allowed. Any crumb that can be contorted into “inferring” evolution is grasped. Anything that might hint of the Rock of Ages is soundly condemned. Pray that such individuals will allow God’s illuminating Truth to shine deep enough into their souls that they will not ultimately be condemned by their own warped worldview.
 Werner Gitt, In the Beginning was Information, 1997, p.22.
 Ibid., p.24.
 R. H. Peters, “Tautology in Evolution and Ecology,” American Naturalist, vol. 110 (January/February 1976), p.1.
 Theodosius Dobzhansky, “On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology” (Part I – Biology), American Scientist (December 1957), p.388.
 G. W. Harper, “Darwinism and Indoctrination,” School Science Review, vol. 59, no. 207 (December 1977), p.258.
 Ibid., p.265.
 Nancy R. Pearcey et. al., The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural philosophy, 1994, p.59.
 Ibid., p74.
 Julian Huxley, Associated Press Dispatch, November 27, 1959, Address at Darwin Centennial convocation, Chicago University, see Issues in Evolution, edited by Sol Tax (University of Chicago Press), 1960, p.252.
 Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man, 1965, p.219.
 C. R. Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1872, p.413.
 C. Patterson, letter to Luther D. Sunderland, April 10, 1979, as published in Darwin’s Enigma, 1988, p.89. (Referenced in Refuting Evolution, by Jonathan Sarfati, p.48.)
 Darwin, Charles, “Autobiography,” reprinted in The Voyage of Charles Darwin, edited by Christopher Rawlings (BBC, 1978), “A Scientist’s Thoughts on Religion,” New Scientist, vol. 104 (December 20/27, 1984), p.75.
 Richard Dawkins, What Was All the Fuss About?, Nature, vol. 316 (August 22, 1985), p. 683.
 Marjorie Grene, “Is Evolution at a Crossroads?” Evolutionary Biology, 1991, p.70.
 Henry Morris & John Morris, The Modern Creation Trilogy, vol. 2, 1996, p.239.
 Stephen J. Gould, ‘Evolution’s Erratic Pace’, Natural History, May, 1977, p.12.
 Ibid., p.14.
 Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men, Darwin and the New World Order, Toronto, 1987, p.276.
 Wilhelm His, Unsere Korperform, 1874 (translation by I. Taylor, In the Minds of Men, p.276).
 Sir Gavin de Beer, Embryos and Ancestors, London, 1958, p.13.
 Ibid., p.170-171.
 Scott M. Hulse, The collapse of Evolution, 1988, p.34-35.
 Douglas F. Kelly, Creation and Change, 1997, p.164.
 Ibid., p.167.
 Henry Morris & John Morris, The Modern Creation Trilogy, vol. 2, 1996, pp.73-74.
 David M. Raup, “Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50 (January 1979), p.25. Raup is Curator of Geology at the Field Museum.
 Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men, Darwin and the New World Order, 1987, p.153.
 Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men, Darwin and the New World Order, 1987, p.456.
 Ibid., p. 264.
 S. R. Scadding, “Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?” Evolutionary Theory, vol. 5 (May 1981), p.175.
 Ibid., p.173.
 August Weismann, Essays upon heredity and kindred biological problems, (translated by E. B. Poulton et al.), 1891, vol. 1, p. 444.
 Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men, Darwin and the New World Order, 1987, p.48.
 Ibid., p.271.
 C. C. Carpenter et. al., Combat bouts with spur use in the Madagascan boa. Herpetologica (Kansas) 23 (June): 207.
 Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men, Darwin and the New World Order, 1987, p.271-272.
 Ibid., p.272.
 Ibid., pp.273-274.
 Frederick S. Hulse, The Human Species, 1971, pp.61-2.
 C. P. Martin, “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,” American Scientist, vol. 41 (January 1953), p.100.
 Ibid., p.103.
 Michael Denton, Evolution: A theory in Crisis, 1985, p.289-291.
 Pierre-P. Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977, p.194.
 Christian Schwabe, “On the Validity of Molecular Evolution,” Trends in Biochemical Sciences (July 1986).
 Roger Lewin, “Do Jumping Genes Make Evolutionary Leaps?” Science, vol. 213 (August 7, 1981), p.634.
 N. Takahata, “A Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, vol. 26 (1995), p.344.
 Steve Jones, The Language of Genes, 1993, p.82.
 Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, 1999, p.82-84.
 Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, 1999, p. 40.
 Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1977), p. 14.
 Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History, vol. 86 (June/July 1977), p.22.
 Gareth V. Nelson, “Origin and Diversification of Teleostean Fishes,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, (1971), p.22.
 Anonymous, “Whales with Legs,” Science Digest, vol. 88 (November/December 1980), p.25.
 “There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say." John 12:48-50, NIV