Updated: 3/12/2023
Is evolution a lie?
Today, more than ever, we hear about evolution and many of us think about it in terms of biological evolution or maybe even just the concept of change over time. It is taught in schools, at science museums, in books by famous scientists, etc. But, can we answer the question: is it really true? Many may say yes, whereas others say no. Specifically, some may think of macroevolution (evolution from one species to another), while others may think of microevolution seen in animals such as dogs or cats (evolution within a species).
So when referring to biological evolution, the main question really comes down to the two types of evolution: macroevolution and microevolution. If someone asks you the question, do you believe in evolution, you should probably ask them: are you referring to macroevolution or microevolution?
Macroevolution
Darwinists, who believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution, believe something along the lines of the following:
Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. (“Darwinism”)
The impetus by which this happens is a process called “natural selection,” which is similar to the saying, “only the strong survive.” However, while this may be true for when, say, bacteria is attacked by antibiotics and the surviving bacteria isn’t killed off and has “evolved,” it surely doesn’t support macroevolution. Though the bacteria “evolved,” in a microevolution sense, it is still bacteria and not another type of organism. This also appears to be valid in different mosquitoes around the world.
This leads us to five points of why natural selection doesn’t work for macroevolution from Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek’s book called, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (starting on pg. 142):
- Genetic Limits
- Cyclical Change
- Irreducible Complexity
- Nonviability of Transitional Forms
- Molecular Isolation
Though I don’t want to go into incredible detail as the authors do a great job of explaining all five points and to avoid basically copying everything the authors have said into this post, I will cover the basics by summarizing them.
Genetic Limits: As to what was similarly posted about bacteria, no matter how dog or cat breeders try to breed the animals (e.g., for intelligence, looks, etc.), the dogs or cats never become another animal. For those saying it may just take a longtime, well, fruit flies have been used to strengthen this case. Given the short life of fruit flies, scientists can test many generations of genetic variation in a short amount of time and the experiments have never turned out anything but more fruit flies. And, they are even crippled because mutations are likely to be more harmful than helpful.
Cyclical Change: The change within these limited types oscillates back and forth within the specific species and doesn’t assist in the development of a new species. After looking this up online for more examples, I couldn’t find any. The author(s) mention that Darwin’s finches had varying beak sizes, which correlated with the weather. As the weather changed, so did the characteristics of the beaks.
Irreducible Complexity: The book uses the car engine as an example of this. If one of the essential parts of a car engine is missing or malfunctioning, the person trying to drive the car won’t be able to. Another source says the following about the complexity of the flagellar motor that some bacterium use to swim: “[a]ll 30 distinct parts of the flagellar motor are essential. So, if you remove one of the parts, it will not work at all, and the bacterium will die” (“Amazing Evidence For God – Scientific Evidence For God” 00:12:30 – 00:12:39).
The ability for this type of complexity to even exist is astonishing. To elaborate, the following statement has been made by a world renown atheist:
Staunch Darwinist Richard Dawkins, professor of zoology at Oxford University, admits that the message found in just the cell nucleus of a tiny amoeba is more than all thirty volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica combined, and the entire amoeba has as much information in its DNA as 1,000 complete sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica! In other words, if you were to spell out all of the A, T, C, and G in the “unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoeba” (as Dawkins describes it), the letters would fill 1,000 complete sets of an encyclopedia! (“In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE”)
How did even a primitive amoeba start out this complex from abiogenesis (the idea that life comes from non-life) when scientists, who are clearly intelligent, cannot create life from non-life in a laboratory? Why would it be any more likely for an impersonal force such as gravity to create this intelligently designed DNA?
Nonviability of Transitional Forms – Shortly put, a Darwinian assertion is that birds evolved over time from reptiles. However, how can this be given that a bird with, say, half a feather wouldn’t be able to fly? Even if there was a way for a reptile to evolve into a bird, how could it sustain its survival during the process?
Molecular Isolation – Finally, the last one, basically refutes the idea that because all of life contains DNA, we must all be from the same ancestor. Could it not be that since we live in the same biosphere all of life has a common design by the designer so that the food chain can work the way it does and animals can function. Studies have shown we may have about 90 percent similar DNA with apes, but that we may also have 90 percent similar DNA with rats. Moreover, the following statement has been said:
If all species share a common ancestor, we should expect to find protein sequences that are transitional from, say, fish to amphibian, or from reptile to mammal. But that’s not what we find at all. Instead, we find that basic types are molecularly isolated from one another, which seems to preclude any type of ancestral relationship. (151)
Other reasons as to why macroevolution can’t be possible are the fossil records created during the Cambrian explosion show life appeared instantly and fully formed. The author(s) also go on to say, “[t]he similarity of structure or anatomy between types (sometimes called homology) also tells us nothing about common ancestry” (154). Moreover, “Amazing Evidence For God – Scientific Evidence For God” states the following:
In many cases, if you even slightly altered these precisely balanced factors, life would be impossible on Earth. On Earth many different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other. Examples are insects and plants such as bees and pollen-bearing plants. If either the plants or bees evolved before the other, they would have not survived. Therefore, they must have come into existence at the same time. (00:04:02 – 00:04:28)
Conclusion
Based upon this succinct post regarding Darwin’s theory of evolution known as Darwinism, we can see that the odds of macroevolution being true are virtually zero. With that being said, it doesn’t mean that all of evolution is false. Microevolution is evident and so is “natural selection,” to some extent. However, for this to even happen, there has to be preexisting life that is already heavily “evolved” or rather created by a Creator, which atheists have no ability to answer given things such as the intelligence required to make intelligent DNA and the fact that abiogenesis is not possible. Instead, this points to an intelligent designer that created not just one species, but all species, intelligently spontaneously.
If you want more information regarding this, again, the book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, is a great read!
Purchase:
Works Cited
“Amazing Evidence For God – Scientific Evidence For God.” YouTube, uploaded by vaticancatholic.com, 3 June 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiMqzN_YSXU/.
“Darwinism.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 19 Aug. 2022, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism.
Geisler, Norman L., and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. CROSSWAY BOOKS, 2021.
“In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE.” Faith Bible Church, http://www.fbcweb.org/Doctrines/SURGECOSMOS.htm#_ftn80/.