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 perhaps even just the concept of change over time. It is taught in schools, at science museums, in books by famous scientists, and so on. But can we answer the question: Is it really true? Many may say yes, whereas others may say no. Specifically, some may be thinking of macroevolution (evolution from one species to another), while others may be thinking of microevolution, as seen in animals such as dogs and 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, “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 behind this process is a mechanism called “natural selection,” which is similar to the saying, “Only the strong survive.” However, while this may be true when, for example, bacteria are exposed to antibiotics and some survive because they are resistant, this does not necessarily support macroevolution. Although the bacteria have “evolved” in the context of microevolution, they are still bacteria and have not become another type of organism. This also appears to be the case with different mosquito populations around the world. 

This leads us to five points why natural selection doesn’t work for macroevolution, as presented by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek in their book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (beginning on page 142):

1. Genetic Limits
2. Cyclical Change
3. Irreducible Complexity
4. Nonviability of Transitional Forms
5. Molecular Isolation

Although I don’t want to go into incredible detail, since the authors do a great job of explaining all five points, I will summarize them to avoid simply copying their work.

Genetic Limits: As with the previously mentioned example involving bacteria, no matter how dog or cat breeders try to breed these animals (e.g., for intelligence, appearance, etc.), dogs and cats never become another type of animal. For those who argue that it may simply take a long time, fruit flies have also been used to strengthen this argument. Given the short life cycle of fruit flies, scientists can study many generations of genetic variation in a relatively short period, yet these experiments have never produced anything other than more fruit flies. Furthermore, the fruit flies may even become impaired because mutations are more likely to be harmful than beneficial.

Cyclical Change: Changes within these limited variations oscillate back and forth within a particular species and do not contribute to the development of a new species. After researching this topic online for additional examples, I couldn’t find any. The authors mention that Darwin’s finches had varying beak sizes that correlated with weather conditions. As the weather changed, so did the characteristics of their beaks.

Irreducible Complexity: The book uses a car engine as an example of this concept. 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 do so. Another source says the following about the complexity of the flagellar motor that some bacteria use to swim: “All 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 of this type of complexity to even exist is astonishing. To elaborate, the following statement was made by a world-renowned 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 relatively primitive organism, such as an amoeba, originate with such complexity through 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 an impersonal force, such as gravity, be any more likely to create this intelligently designed DNA?

Nonviability of Transitional Forms: Simply put, a Darwinian assertion is that birds evolved over time from reptiles. However, how is this possible given that a bird with, say, only half a feather wouldn’t be able to fly? Even if there were a way for a reptile to evolve into a bird, how could it survive throughout the process?

Molecular Isolation: Finally, the last point essentially challenges the idea that because all living organisms contain DNA, we must all have descended from a common ancestor. Could it not be that, since we live in the same biosphere, all life shares a common design from the Designer so that the food chain functions as it does and organisms can survive? Studies have suggested that we may share approximately 90 percent of our DNA with apes, but that we may also share approximately 90 percent with rats. Moreover, the following statement has been made:

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 why macroevolution may not be possible include the fossil records from the Cambrian explosion, which, according to this argument, show that life appeared instantly and fully formed. The authors also go on to say, “The 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 on this succinct discussion of 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, this doesn’t mean that all forms of evolution are false. Microevolution is evident, as is “natural selection,” to some extent. However, for these processes to occur, preexisting life must already exist—life that is highly “evolved” or, rather, created by a Creator. Atheists have no satisfactory explanation for this, particularly when considering the intelligence required to produce DNA and the challenges associated with abiogenesis. Instead, this points to an intelligent Designer who created not just one species, but all species, through intelligent design.

If you want more information on this topic, the book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek is a great read!

Purchase: