Evolution: A Science or Faith?

A reaction essay to the theory evolution, written Spring 2006.

Evolution. Most Americans have a general idea of what it is, and most have an opinion about its validity. However, most Americans do not realize that the theory of Evolution is a complicated theory with many new definitions and vague concepts. What is evolution? To really answer this question, one must break it down into somewhat simpler questions. What kind of evolution is being discussed? How does it work? Does the fossil record prove this theory? Does it disprove this theory? How has the theory changed in response? These are the questions that bring clarity to the evolution issue and determine if it is a sound science or a theoretical faith.

When someone says ‘evolution,’ I always wonder. What do they mean? Cosmic evolution? Chemical evolution? Organic evolution? Planetary evolution? Most people are referring to “all the changes that have formed life on Earth from its earliest beginnings to the diversity that characterizes it today.” This is the definition of evolution according to the Modern Biology textbook’s glossary. However, this definition is an example of the over generalization of most definitions. It falls short in even mentioning that there are 6 types of evolution, let alone specifying which one it is talking about. This definition is partially accurate for the theory of macroevolution, but does not even touch microevolution. These are the most confused types of evolution. Macroevolution is the gradual change over long periods of time resulting in a variety of species (new large taxonomic groups). Microevolution is change within a species resulting in a variety of sub-species (new sub-groups on a taxonomic level). The change of an entire organism gradually over time is a drastically different theory than a change in the structure of a bird’s beak or the coloring of a moth. This is the blatant difference between macroevolution and its confusing partner with a similar name- microevolution. Most references to evolution refer to macroevolution, but all the evidence supports microevolution. Darwin’s finches on the Galápagos Island showed a variety of body size and beak structure. These finches and other animals on Galápagos show that microevolution-variation within a species- still occurs. It says nothing about macroevolution. However, the use of one generic term for two distinctly different concepts allows for one to say an experiment may prove evolution (referring to microevolution) and leave the impression of proof of macroevolution. With a general understanding of the difference between microevolution and macroevolution, one can start to ask another question.

How does it work? Both types of evolution claim to use natural selection, but natural selection is a commonly misunderstood term. On page 284, Modern Biology discusses natural selection. Natural selection is defined as a process in which “organisms best suited to their environment reproduce more successfully than other organisms.” In other words, nature selects traits to continue in existence by allowing certain animals with those traits to reproduce more rapidly. However, a vital part of the definition is often missed. In natural selection, variation possibilities are reduced, not increased, because it selects some previously existing genes and eliminates other genes. Mendel’s laws of genetics state that genes are rearranged from one generation to another, and new combinations are made, not new genes. This helps account for the variation within species such as birds, cats, and dogs. Natural selection does not come close to explaining the origin of species (macroevolution), but Mendel’s law of genetics explains diversity within them (microevolution). By making gene pools less diverse, natural selection would actually prevent macroevolution from taking place.

Does the fossil record show macroevolution? If all organisms on earth evolved, there should be countless intermediate fossils. One would be laughed at, even in evolutionary circles, for saying there are countless intermediate fossils, because no credible fossils exist. As I say ‘none exist,’ I am sure you’re thinking about Lucy, and possibly the Neanderthals. Most people, and scientists, concentrate on the most obvious missing link in the theoretical evolutionary chain- the link between humans and apes. Chapter 17 section 2 of Modern Biology is titled “Fossil Evidence of Hominid Evolution.” Curiously, I read about Australopithecus afarensis (more commonly called “Lucy”). While the video Origins implies that Lucy is an ancestor to common man, Modern Biology contradicts that by stating that her descendants were probably not human ancestors at all (Both of these believe, in some way, that Lucy helps prove macroevolution.). However, Richard Leaky, one of the best-known fossil anthropologists, said that no firm conclusion could be drawn as to what species Lucy even belonged to! Leaky also found a normal human skull under a layer of rock dated 212 million years, over 200 million years older than Lucy. The video Origins also showed that Lucy’s fossils not only came from different spots, they were gathered a year apart. When a modern knee grouped with fossils thought to be hundreds of millions of years old stumped archaeologists, they searched for another answer. After “copying” the fossil, one archaeologist began to sand and rearrange Lucy’s “copy” to make her capable of walking upright (a feature thought to bring consistency, and thus credibility, to their discovery). This altered creation was presented as proof of macroevolution. I usually relate aspects of life to law, and this intentional alteration stuck out like a sore thumb. In the legal world, this could be called calculated fraud and tampering with evidence. Highly illegal, this evidence would not be permissible in a courtroom. If such false exhibits were revealed, there would be stern punishments and possible jail time. However, according to many evolutionists, it is called proof. In reality, Australopithecines (discussed on page 325 of Modern Biology) are surprisingly apelike in form, limb proportions, and premolar dentition and great evidence that they swung from trees exists. They are unique, and many are investigating claims of living Australopithecines in Sumatra today. After scrutiny, Lucy’s credibility is greatly questionable, and most experts now agree Lucy was only an unusual chimpanzee, not a missing link. As for the Neanderthals, every fossil I researched has either great evidence of tampering and reconstructing in its history, or has been proven inaccurate. “Neanderthal Man,” for example, has been shown to be the skeleton of an elderly man who suffered from arthritis. This lack of credible science creates great doubt in my mind to the accuracy of claims of human-ape fossils. You may be asking, “If so many fossil links are missing, why is macroevolution considered true?” That’s a good question, but a more disturbing question is formed when taking a look at the rest of the fossil layers.

Does the fossil record disprove macroevolution? First, lets look at the “geologic column.” This chart is a drawing of layers of earth ranging in complexity. The lowest, oldest, and least complex layer lies at the bottom, and the top layer is today. This chart is the theory of evolution put into paper. How does it work? If you have a fossil from a certain layer, an “index fossil,” paleontologists will estimate its age by what layer it was found in. However, if you ask how they found the original age of the layer, it is by the age of the fossils it contains! This is circular reasoning. However, for the sake of argument lets assume this fallacy does not exist. Figure 15-1b of Modern Biology claims the trilobite was a dominant life form in early seas. The trilobite is a common index fossil, but what happens when they’re found in the same layer as humans? Evolutionists claim trilobites became extinct 240 million years before humans evolved, yet in 1968 William J. Meister found fossilized human shoeprints, not footprints, with an obvious fossilized trilobite under the heel. Most evolutionists claim the coelacanth is an index fossil dating layers at least 70 million years old, but living coelacanths exist today. Many upsets and inconsistencies with this chart exist, because nowhere on earth is such a complete progression of rock layers found! The geologic column exists on paper alone. Close examination of macroevolutionary “proof” shows that it is not proof at all. The links between species don’t exist, and true science is disproving it every day.

How have evolutionists dealt with theses holes in their theory? Section 16-3 of Modern Biology talks openly about animals in the fossil record existing without change for long periods of time. And then, out of nowhere, rapid change. The theory of punctuated equilibrium is an attempt to maintain the credibility of evolution with this evidence. This theory says that between these long periods of no evolution, there are sudden periods of rapid macroevolution. I simply can’t see how this does not contradict macroevolution! I thought macroevolution was “the gradual change over long periods of time resulting in a variety of species.” How, then is punctuated equilibrium an evolutionary response to the missing links in the fossil record? This is a major inconsistency within the theory itself. Wouldn’t “the sudden shift in form that is often seen in the fossil record” disprove the gradual change over time? I see this as an attempt to use the lack of fossil evidence as evidence itself. The fossil record disproves evolution, and the theory of punctuated equilibrium is an open acknowledgement of that.

Science is supposed to be free of bias, but the more I study, the more I realize that that isn’t so. Everyone has a bias, even I have a bias. Everyone believes what they believe, and we all bring that to the table when we interpret facts. However, many people don’t realize that. Generalizations and confusing scientific words loose people in the world of “the educated,” and most people simply take a scientist’s words at face value, not realizing the bias in the facts’ interpretation. Natural selection, Darwin’s method for evolution, would prevent macroevolution from occurring. The fossil record shows macroevolution did not occur, and evolutionists have admitted it did not occur with their creation of punctuated equilibrium. “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science," Darwin said in an unpublished letter to a Harvard biology professor on the eve of the publication of his On the Origin of Species. I wonder why we’re taught generic evolution in science class when the creator of the supposed main mechanism realized it wasn’t science. Darwin stated: “the fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory. Is it then a science or faith?" Learning about theories in public schools is one thing, but learning about faith is another.

Information other than Biology textbook (Modern Biology) & classroom film (Origins):

http://www.darwin-literature.com/l_quotes.html. Accessed on May 12, 2006.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part2.html. Accessed on May 12, 2006.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/focus.asp. Accessed on May 12, 2006.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/lucy.asp. Accessed on May 12, 2006.

“Big Daddy?” pamphlet by Dr. Kent Hovind. (See www.drdino.com for info on Dr. Hovind)

In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D.

Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation by Dennis R. Petersen.