Observations.net

Questions and Answers

Do you believe in the darwinian theory of evolution?

No. Darwinism, at its heart, is an atheistic system for eliminating the Creator. In the darwinist view, the universe is a closed system, and cannot be influenced by any causes outside of nature. Random mutations provide new genetic material to be sorted out by the mindless force of natural selection. Through the process of survival of the fittest some individuals survive longer and produce more offspring because a random mutation has made that individual more fit. Natural selection, thus, rewards these good random mutations. In time, these random mutations build upon themselves causing species to change until they become new species.

In darwinism, natural selection is invested with the power to guide inert matter into living forms, create DNA, and create every single life form which has ever existed on this planet. The darwinist Richard Dawkins calls this process of natural selection and random mutations, the blind watchmaker. The blind watchmaker is the god of darwinism for blind, unconscious forces take the place of God. Consequently, we are here by pure accident. Rewind the clock, go back in time, and replay the process of natural selection, and we might not evolve the second time around.

Creationists, though, have become highly sophisticated in their ability to answer darwinism. This is due in large measure to the overall growth in scientific knowledge, and the increased understanding of the complexity of biological life. Today's intelligent design theorists are raising objections and presenting points of evidence which the darwinists cannot answer. The darwinists' only strategy has been to mischaracterize the opposition, and to engage in name calling. In effect, the tables have been turned. The intelligent design theorists are the true scientists and the darwinists are the dogmatists fiercely holding on to a discredited belief system.

An example of intelligent design theory is provided by the biochemist Michael Behe. He points out that many systems in living organisms are irreducibly complex. He writes:

Darwin's theory encounters its greatest difficulties when it comes to explaining the development of the cell. Many cellular systems are what I term 'irreducibly complex.' That means the system needs several components before it can work properly. An everyday example of irreducible complexity is a mousetrap, built of several pieces (platform, hammer, spring and so on). Such a system probably cannot be put together in a Darwinian manner, gradually improving its function. You can't catch a mouse with just the platform and then catch a few more by adding the spring. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice.

An example of an irreducibly complex cellular system is the bacterial flagellum: a rotary propeller, powered by a flow of acid, that bacteria use to swim. The flagellum requires a number of parts before it works -- a rotor, stator and motor. Furthermore, genetic studies have shown that about 40 different kinds of proteins are needed to produce a working flagellum.

The intracellular transport system is also quite complex. Plant and animal cells are divided into many discrete compartments; supplies, including enzymes and proteins, have to be shipped between these compartments. Some supplies are packaged into molecular trucks, and each truck has a key that will fit only the lock of its particular cellular destination. Other proteins act as loading docks, opening the truck and letting the contents into the destination compartment.

Many other examples could be cited. The bottom line is that the cell -- the very basis of life -- is staggeringly complex. But doesn't science already have answers, or partial answers, for how these systems originated? No. As James Shapiro, a biochemist at the University of Chicago, wrote, 'There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.'

Thus, an irreducibly complex cellular system cannot evolve piecemeal because of its interdependency. If any single part is missing, the system cannot function. Dr. Behe notes, [Darwin] said that if it could be shown that any system or organ could not be produced by many small steps, continuously improving the system at each step, then his system would absolutely fall apart. Hence, darwinism has effectively been disproven. (For more on Michael Behe, please see the Apologetics.org link below.)

However, is it possible that the Creator has used a form of evolution as His method of creation, but supplemented by direct creation of the irreducibly complex systems? And the answer is, yes. However, does the evidence demonstrate that He used this method. And the answer is, no. Author Mark Hartwing points out, If Darwinism were true, the fossil evidence should reveal lots of gradual change, with one species slowly grading into the next. In fact, it should be hard to tell where one species ends and another begins. But that's not what we find. He goes on to say:

The fossil evidence appears particularly troublesome with the 'Cambrian Explosion,' which most paleontologists believe took place approximately 530 million years ago. In an instant of geological time, almost every animal phylum seemingly popped into existence from nowhere.

A phylum is the broadest classification of animals. The phylum that contains human beings, for instance, also contains elephants, squirrels, canaries, lizards, guppies, and frogs. It includes every animal with a backbone - and then some. If the differences within a phylum are vast, the differences between phyla are far greater. As much as a chimpanzee may differ from a fish, it differs even more radically from a sea urchin. The two are built on entirely different architectural themes.

That's why the Cambrian Explosion remains so troubling for Darwinists. What paleontologists find isn't just the sudden appearance of a few new species. They encounter species so utterly distinct that they have to be placed in different phyla. Even Oxford zoologist and prominent Darwinist Richard Dawkins has remarked, 'It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.'

Worse yet, after the Cambrian Explosion, almost no new phyla appear in the fossil record - and many go extinct. By conventional dating, that's a 500 million-year dry spell.

This is exactly the opposite of what Charles Darwin would have predicted. According to Darwinism, new phyla are produced by the gradual divergence of species. As species split off from each other over time, they eventually become so dissimilar as to constitute a whole new body plan. Therefore,we should see new species slowly appearing over time, followed by the much slower appearance of new phyla --what Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould calls 'a cone of increasing diversity.' Instead, the cone is upside down. Even by conventional timelines, the fossils look very non-Darwinian. (For more on Mark Hartwing, please see the Apologetics.org link below.)

For those who wish to do further research on intelligent design theory, I recommend the following sources: