<< Previous | Index | Next >>
                        "THE CASE FOR CREATION"

                 Difficulties With Evolutionary Science


1. Many people assume that science has proven evolution as a fact...
   a. That it is no longer a theory
   b. But an irrefutable explanation for the origin of life
   c. A good reason to reject the Biblical account of creation

2. This is because most are unaware that...
   a. Crucial elements of evolutionary theory have never been proven
   b. There is a growing dissent among scientists regarding evolution

[In this study I want to illustrate that there are difficulties with
evolutionary science, leading some to suggest that it is a "theory in
crisis".  But first we should carefully define our terms...]


      1. Evolution = change
      2. Evolution = change over time
      3. Evolution = a process that results in heritable changes in a
         population spread over many generations
      -- Both creationists and evolutionists agree with this basic

      1. This term generally refers to evolutionary change below the
         level of species
      2. Though some apply it to changes below the level of genera or
         even families
         a. The Genesis account refers to God creating "according to its
            kind" - Gen 1:24-25
         b. Some understand "kind=species", but "kind" might include
            genera or families
      3. This change is easily observable, especially within species
      4. Even if it were shown that evolution produces a change from one
         species to another, it does not necessarily contradict the
         Genesis account
      -- Creationists acknowledge this degree of evolution as factual

      1. This term generally refers to evolutionary change at or above
         the level of species
      2. Though some apply it to changes above the level of genera or
      3. This relates to large scale changes over geological time, e.g.,
         "from amoeba to man"
      4. This degree of change is not observable, but assumed based on
      -- Evolutionists claim this degree of evolution as factual

      1. Darwinism - A theory of organic evolution claiming that new
         species arise and are perpetuated by natural selection
      2. Neo-Darwinism - A modern Darwinian theory that explains new
         species in terms of genetic mutations, more properly known as
         Modern Evolution Synthesis
      -- In both views, evidence from microevolution is extrapolated to
         support macroevolution

[The difficulties of evolutionary science discussed in this lesson
pertain to macroevolution, not microevolution.  Microevolution is a
fact, but macroevolution is a theory much in dispute...]


      1. "It is now approximately half a century since the neo-Darwinian
         synthesis was formulated. A great deal of research has been
         carried on within the paradigm it defines. Yet the successes of
         the theory are limited to the interpretation of the minutiae of
         evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of moths;
         while it has remarkably little to say on the questions which
         interest us most, such as how there came to be moths in the
         first place." - Ho, Mae-Wan & Saunders, P.T., "Beyond
         neo-Darwinism - An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution," Journal
         of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 78, 1979
      2. "Clearly something is missing from biology. It appears that
         Darwin's theory works for the small-scale aspects of evolution:
         it can explain the variations and the adaptations within
         species that produce fine-tuning of varieties to different
         habitats. The large-scale differences of form between types of
         organism that are the foundation of biological classification
         systems seem to require a principle other than natural
         selection operating on small variations, some process that
         gives rise to distinctly different forms of organism. This is
         the problem of emergent order in evolution, the origins of
         novel structures in organisms that has always been a primary
         interest in biology." - Goodwin, Brian [Professor of Biology,
         Open University, UK], "How The Leopard Changed Its Spots: The
         Evolution of Complexity," 1994
      -- Microevolution has been proven, but macroevolution has not!

      1. "Neo-Darwinism has failed as an evolutionary theory that can
         explain the origin of species, understood as organisms of
         distinctive form and behaviour. In other words, it is not an
         adequate theory of evolution. What it does provide is a partial
         theory of adaptation, or microevolution (small-scale adaptive
         changes in organisms)." - Goodwin, Brian [Professor of Biology,
         Open University, UK], "Neo-Darwinism has failed as an
         evolutionary theory," The Times Higher Education Supplement,
         May 19, 1995
      2. "My main criticism of Darwinism is that it fails in its initial
         objective, which is to explain the origin of species. Now, let
         me explain exactly what I mean by that. I mean it fails to
         explain the emergence of organisms, the specific forms during
         evolution like algae and ferns and flowering plants, corals,
         starfish, crabs, fish, birds." - Goodwin, Brian, "An interview
         with Professor Brian Goodwin by Dr David King," GenEthics News,
         Issue 11. March/April 1996
      -- These are not the words of a creationist!

      1. "I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its
         unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960's.
         Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a
         universal description of evolution. The molecular assault came
         first, followed quickly by renewed attention to unorthodox
         theories of speciation and by challenges at the level of
         macroevolution itself. I have been reluctant to admit it-since
         beguiling is often forever-but if Mayr's characterization of
         the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory, as a
         general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its
         persistence as textbook orthodoxy." - Gould, Stephen Jay
         [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA],
         "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?,"
         Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 1980
      2. "More and more workers are showing signs of dissatisfaction
         with the synthetic theory. Some are attacking its philosophical
         foundations, arguing that the reason that it has been so amply
         confirmed is simply that it is unfalsifiable: with a little
         ingenuity any observation can be made to appear consistent with
         it. Others have been deliberately setting out to work in just
         those areas in which neo-Darwinism is least comfortable, like
         the problem of the gaps in the fossil record or the mechanisms
         of non-Mendelian inheritance. Still others, notably some
         systematists, have decided to ignore the theory altogether, and
         to carry on their research without any a priori assumption
         about how evolution has occurred. Perhaps most significantly of
         all, there is now appearing a stream of articles and books
         defending the synthetic theory. It is not so long ago that
         hardly anyone thought this was necessary." - Ho, Mae-Wan
         [Biologist, The Open University, UK] & Saunders, Peter T.
         [Mathematician, University of London], eds., "Beyond Neo-
         Darwinism: An Introduction to the New Evolutionary Paradigm,"
         Academic Press: London, 1984
      3. "The 'modern evolutionary synthesis' convinced most biologists
         that natural selection was the only directive influence on
         adaptive evolution. Today, however, dissatisfaction with the
         synthesis is widespread, and creationists and antidarwinians
         are multiplying. The central problem with the synthesis is its
         failure to show (or to provide distinct signs) that natural
         selection of random mutations could account for observed levels
         of adaptation." - Leigh, Egbert G., Jr. [Biologist, Smithsonian
         Institution, USA], "The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and
         creationism," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 14, No. 12
      -- Scientists are having to go "back to the drawing board"!

[To my knowledge, the scientists quoted above are not creationists.  But
together with many other scientists they illustrate a growing...]


      1. "During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many
         scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology,
         "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused
         scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of
         natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in
         greater detail."
      2. "Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and
         science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of
         evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The
         public has been assured that all known evidence supports
         Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world
         believes the theory to be true."
      3. "The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand
         as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since
         Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of
         scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their
      4. "The list is growing and includes scientists from the US
         National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech
         National Academies, as well as from universities such as
         Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others."
      5. Their Statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of
         random mutation and natural selection to account for the
         complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for
         Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
      6. Over 700 scientists have signed the above statement - The List
         Of Scientists
      -- Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

      1. "Sadly, academic freedom is no longer assured in many
         countries. This is especially true when it involves espousing
         views contrary to the theory of Darwinian macroevolution."
      2. "Numerous instances have been documented where scientists and
         teachers have either been censored or removed from their
         positions for allowing or facilitating open discussion of the
         empirical problems of macroevolution."
      3. "As academia has suppressed freedom of speech in this area,
         another avenue needs to be available to promote accurate
         information and the free exchange of ideas concerning the
         debate over Darwinism and alternative theories on origins."
      4. "Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI) was
         established as a means for physicians and surgeons to publicly
         be counted among those skeptical of nature-driven Darwinian
      5. Their statement:  "As medical doctors we are skeptical of the
         claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection
         to account for the origination and complexity of life and we
         therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable
         theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative
      6. Almost 300 doctors have signed the above statement - The List
         Of Doctors
      -- Physicians And Surgeons For Scientific Integrity


1. I have not presented specific problems with macroevolution, such
   a. The Cambrian explosion
   b. Gaps in the fossil records
   c. Lack of transitional forms
   d. Evidence of humans coexisting with dinosaurs
   -- I am not scientist, and willing to let others evaluate such

2. But it does not take a trained scientist to know that
   a. Is only a theory, not yet proven
   b. Is a leap of blind faith (requiring extrapolation without
      sufficient evidence)
   -- The major difference between the Biblical account and Darwinian

3. My purpose is simply to emphasize...
   a. "There is scientific dissent from Darwinism."
   b. "It deserves to be heard."
   -- Dissent From Evolution, ibid.

Reasons why we do not often hear about such dissent in our schools and
mainstream media will be considered in our next and final lesson...

Note:  Quotations in the section "Difficulties With Evolution" were
copied from a compilation of quotes on creation and evolution by Stephen
E. Jones.
<< Previous | Index | Next >>

Home Page
Have A Bible Question? | Want A Free Bible Study Course? | Looking For A Church Near You?
Want To Talk With Someone By Phone? | Want To Discuss The Bible By Email?
Search The Outlines

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

eXTReMe Tracker