The evolution question is nothing new yet still causes many emotionally-charged conversations and misunderstandings. If the answer was so straightforward you would have thought any debate would have been settled years ago, but it continues with an increasing vigor. Social media plays a huge part in modern culture as it seems the whole world is connected, allowing opinions to shared globally. However, it only takes someone to suggest Biblical creation is backed up with evidence for the outrage to begin. So where does this leave us? Surely there must a clear-cut way to answer the big question – is evolution true?
We believe there is, although this largely depends on your definition of evolution, but surely we are all simply searching for the truth? Allowing ourselves to look at the evidence without letting any presuppositions cloud our conclusion is the only way to fairly answer this question. To begin with, we need to define “evolution” as this term is used to mean different things. Only then can we evaluate the evidence for that definition, so this is where we begin…
What is your definition of evolution?
Before we unpack any evidence, it is important to understand which definition of evolution is being discussed. Evolution can mean three different things:
Definition 1: Change over time
This is a broad definition – everything evolves in some way due to natural processes. For example, our bodies change as we grow old and our surroundings ‘evolve’ from being tidy to untidy without our input. Even our ideas and opinions ‘evolve’ due to experience and new information – in addition, processes and systems are said to ‘evolve’ and become more efficient as better ways are found for doing things. There is no disputing this, change over time is easily observable and whether these are beneficial or non-beneficial changes, this is often referred to as a process of something evolving from one state to another.
Definition 2: Small changes occur overtime that show new characteristics
Charles Darwin called this the Special Theory of Evolution, more popularly know as microevolution.
This is the “evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period.” This change happens within a genetic group, usually for survival, to adapt to its environment, even within one generation. The small changes occur with existing genetic material as they reunite giving different characteristics or traits, a process also known as natural selection. Although there are changes, each descendant stays within the same type or kind – for example, there is huge variety in the appearance of human beings but human being remain human beings without mutating into a different creature.
Microevolution was observed in the popular example of Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos where they discovered that only finches with bigger beaks would survive droughts, the finches with smaller beaks die off as they cannot reach food. We also see microevolution with bacteria where they have an ability to evolve a resistance to antibiotics even though they remain bacteria.
The examples are wide ranging, even with dogs and cats in our own homes, we can all witness these changes. The evidence is clear that microevolution is observable, there are no doubts that this is true.
Definition 3: Major changes occur that produce new kinds of organisms
The third definition is called the General Theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin, we would know this more commonly as macroevolution, or Darwinism.
Macroevolution is the “major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.” This is the molecules-to-man hypothesis that every living organism that has existed (plants, animals, etc.) evolved from a single cell, so every organism ultimately has a common ancestor.
The evolutionist will say this is the same process of microevolution but over a much longer period of time, millions of years. This would account for large scale (macro) changes like fish to reptiles and reptiles to birds. Macroevolution requires new genetic information to be added to the organism in order to evolve into all the different types/kinds we have today.
Issues arise when looking for evidence for macroevolution because it is not observable. There is no scientific evidence available to show that macroevolution has occurred.
What evidence is there for Darwinian evolution?
To say “evolution means change so that means evolution is true” is very misleading. For definitions 1 & 2 the evidence is very clear, these can be observed and tested easily. The evidence for definition 3 is the crucial bit, to say it’s not observable does not necessarily mean it’s not true or has not happened. If it is true and with it being such a global change over millions of years we would expect to discover evidence to prove the claims. Without any clear evidence we cannot make any assertion that macroevolution is true.
In the fossil record we would expect to find transitional forms, also known as ‘missing links’. With evolution said to have been happening for millions of years there shouldn’t be one or two, but billions (if not trillions) of different forms as the weaker types died of leaving the stronger ones to grow. The problem is we don’t see evidence for this, the fossils we discover look identical to the animals and plants we have today!
In the past it was claimed that the fossil record was real evidence for evolution, but from the billions of fossils discovered, not a single one shows the evolving process of transitional forms. You will see plenty of drawings but no real evidence to back up those diagrams. Even the promoted evolutionary trees connecting bacteria, plants, and animals have no evidence for the change between kinds – hence they are named ‘missing’ links!
We are told that many fossils, bones, rocks, etc. are tens of millions of years old. However, we are not told about the assumptions that are made to get to these dates. There are many dating methods, and much could be said on each, but it is important to understand that for every one, fundamental unprovable assumptions are made by the scientists about the past before a date is calculated. These assumptions are made according to the worldview of the scientists. All too often date calculations are changed to fit with other factors, if a date does not fit other information then it is changed. Not very scientific!
‘Survival of the fittest’ is said to have been happening since the beginning, as organisms’ characteristics adapt to their environment. The problem is natural selection can only ‘select’ from existing genetic information, no new genes are produced. This is evidence for Definition 2 as we see with all the variants of dogs, cats, etc. we witness around us.
By definition this is clearly a selective process not a creative one, for macroevolution to be true the origin of the genetic information needs to be explained.
As technology has advanced we have been able to understand more about bacteria through microscopic research. We can observe the vital functions these microorganisms play in the world. Bacteria are often used as evidence of evolution, such as with antibiotic resistance, so what does the evidence show?
We can observe that the bacterium are able to display different characteristics to survive as their environment changes, such as with the introduction of an antibiotic. Again, this is evidence for Definition 2, throughout all the observations and experiments, bacteria remains bacteria, it has not changed into a different organism, and no new information has been received. This is another example of natural selection in action and not evidence of macroevolution.
Where is the evidence?
We can observe many distinct kinds, in animals and plants, and a vast amount of characteristic changes (species) that are within each kind/type, but lacking evidence of intermediary changes betweens kinds. For macroevolution to be true we need to see evidence showing an increase of information to get from molecules to man.
To say “evolution goes too slowly for us to observe today” is not sufficient because it calls for faith without the evidence, which is exactly what evolutionists accuse creationists of! Debates will continue about ‘junk’ DNA and ‘vestigial’ organs, more claims will be made for bad design, but these are not providing evidence for definition number 3. For example, evolutionists sometimes claim the human eye is a bad design. This is a surprising claim as we have not been able to create anything even close to a replacement, yet we are being asked to believe that unguided random processes led to something far superior to anything ‘intelligent’ and ‘creative’ humans can make.
The evidence that we do see speaks for itself! The complexity of a single cell is simply mind-boggling and an incredible amount of faith is needed to believe this evolved by luck and chance. Then there is DNA, our genetic code, for which a lot could be said. For any cell replication to happen, DNA needs to exists first, so to think this evolved is a stretch to anyone’s imagination!
Evolutionists often use Darwin’s name as though he has already proved macroevolution, this simply is not the case. In Darwin’s day they did not have the technology we do today to look into organisms and see their complex structures. Darwin even made the following statement:
We observe this today, and his theory has broken down but evolutionists still promote it as true.
It’s getting emotional
There is a lot at stake here: people reputations, livelihoods, pride and careers are on the line. Not only this, there is the whole “religious” tag that many want to stay far away from. It is important to understand that this is not about ‘science vs religion’ or even ‘faith vs facts’, as many would have you believe. The majority of the time it is a battle of emotions, the more they are pulled in one direction or the other, the less focus there is on the actual evidence. This is why the definitions are important to understand.
In many sources for ‘evidence of evolution’ evolutionists will give examples of change over time and microevolution (Definitions 1 & 2) but use them as evidence for Definition 3. The majority of people do not see this ‘bait and switch’ technique as they are more determined to prove creation wrong than question what evolutionists say.
When evolutionists are questioned on this still no evidence is given for macroevolution, and continue to insist molecules-to-man evolution is true. This is one reason why many evolutionists will not debate creationists now, because the evidence for creation speaks for itself. The majority of ‘debates’ happen now on social media, but these again are more emotional battles than evidence based.
Our emotions pull us in different ways, but feelings are not facts! Many are so desperate to explain our origin without the Creator that they can be blinded from the facts. Understanding the different definitions of evolution will help test what is said to allow us to come to our own conclusions based solely on the evidence.
So, is Evolution true?
Evolution happens, no one denies this, but now we know there are different types of evolution. So, the more accurate question is – is macroevolution true? The answer is no. There is no scientific evidence for macroevolution, in fact, the available evidence is against it. When creationists say they do not believe in evolution, they are referring to macroevolution.
There are two kinds of science: operational and historical. Operational science, also called observational science because this is where we observe something and experiment to draw our conclusions. It’s based on repeatable experiments and observations in the present. Historical science considers things that happened in the past, it requires making assumptions about the past from information we have in the present. This involves speculation and making educated guesses about the past simply because it cannot be directly tested, no tests can be repeated.
As macroevolution is said to happen over millions of years, we are clearly working with historical science. Already we are trying to look back to millions of years in our past with only data in the present, this makes educated guessing extremely difficult, if not impossible. Without a Creator we have to say that the universe begun out of nothing, literally ‘nothing’, the only way around this is redefine the word ‘nothing’ to mean something! Then life has to begin, but it would have to being from non-life, which goes against the scientific law of biogenesis. The only explanation for these, and the many other events that must have happened over the course of time, without allowing for anything supernatural, would be to say these are miracles. But then we cannot say that either!
Evolutionists want us to believe our existence all boils down to luck and chance, basically they want us to have faith in what they believe. Furthermore, without evidence for macroevolution this simply amounts to blind faith.
This is your choice! It’s easy to go with the crowd and blindly accept what the evolutionists say – it also allows us to carry on with our daily lives without having a morality check. However, to investigate the evidence honestly without our presuppositions influencing any conclusions takes courage and goes against the grain. Many don’t like the ‘religious’ tag that believers are labeled with, but if you are seriously in your search for truth you will be called a lot of things! So, are we trying to find truth or please our family and friends? Unfortunately, in our current society, not many have both.
When you really look at the evidence for Christianity: the Bible prophecies, reliability of the Bible, did the resurrection really happen? you see that you can have faith because of the evidence. You do not need blind faith to be a Christian.
All the evidence points to a Creator God, whose son, Jesus Christ went to the cross to pay the price for all our sins. We can be set free from our sin and have a real hope if we accept His payment. Jesus Christ is coming back, it is your choice if you are ready!
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:20)
Following the evidence
It is not easy for anyone in the scientific community to speak out about evidence that favours creation or intelligent design, any that do are often persecuted and usually lose their jobs as we cover in an earlier blog – Science and the Bible – Lost Freedom. But here are a few examples where people are following the evidence:
- A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution
- Scientist Sues Calif University for Firing Him After His Dinosaur Discovery Supported Creationism
- Prominent Atheist Professor of Law and Philosophy Thomas Nagel Calls Intelligent Design Scientific and Constitutional to “Mention” in Science Classes
Evolution vs God
We also recommend watching this short movie…