This post will be the first of a series of posts discussing the validity of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, and Carbon Dating. Many fine sounding arguments for both items have been made in academia, but I would like us to consider what evidence there is for both.
There is no disguising that it is my desire that the reader would question what they believe to be true of both issues. It is my prayer that the reader would ultimately become a Christian, but this post is not to preach Christianity, or the validity of the Bible, but only to present these items with complete transparency.
I think it would be wise to start with the man that developed the theory.
Who is Charles Darwin?
Charles Darwin, in full Charles Robert Darwin, (born February 12, 1809, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England—died April 19, 1882, Downe, Kent), English naturalist whose scientific theory of evolution by natural selection became the foundation of modern evolutionary studies.
It is important that we define “natural selection”. The definition found in various Google searches returned:
Natural Selection: the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution.
Natural Selection is logical and observable on a, what has come to be know as, microevolution level. After all, it is scientific; there is observable evidence. One of the arguments for evolution is the Galapagos finches, which it has been said:
The Galapagos finches helped Darwin solidify his idea of natural selection. The favorable adaptations of Darwin’s Finches’ beaks were selected for over generations until they all branched out to make new species. These birds, although nearly identical in all other ways to mainland finches, had different beaks.
The Galapagos finches are a good example of microevolution; species do adapt over time. Humans are bigger on average than they used to be, and dogs are bred to develop different breeds. However, the point of contention is not in microeveolution, it is in macroevolution. Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species.
We can agree that species adapt over time; the Galapagos finches adapted over time, but they are still finches. Men can be bigger than generations past, but they are still men. Dogs can be bred to create a different breed, but they are still dogs.
However, the subject at hand is macroevolution, a species becoming another species. Since it is Darwin’s theory that has been so widely accepted, it is logical that we would look at the development of the theory:
The very beginning of life according to Darwin was as follows:
Darwin was proposing that life began, not in the open ocean, but in a smaller body of water on land, which was rich in chemicals. This is in essence the primordial soup idea, but with one advantage: in a pool, any dissolved chemicals would become concentrated when water evaporated in the heat of the day.
Essentially, the theory is, that all life started in a single-cell organism in small body of water.
Let’s look at the definition of “scientific theory”:
Scientific Theory: systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited (a basis for argument). A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.
A “scientific rational manner” is what we know as the scientific method:
1. Define a Question to Investigate. As scientists conduct their research, they make observations and collect data. …
a. Darwin’s “Question to investigate” was the origin of life
2. Make Predictions. Based on their research and observations, scientists will often come up with a hypothesis. …
a. Darwin observed the adaptation of the beaks of the Galapagos finches and ultimately came up with the hypothesis that all life came from a single-cell organism
3. Gather Data. …
a. Darwin observed various species on his many voyages
4. Analyze the Data. …
a. Darwin analyzed his data, but the reality is, there is no observable evidence that any of the species he analyzed had changed “kinds”. The turtles, although different, were still turtles, etc.
5. Draw Conclusions.
a. Although Darwin concluded life began as a single-cell organism, there is no scientific basis for the conclusion. The validity of a theory must have the experimental data to back it up.
The argument from academia is that they don’t have millions of years to experiment to thus prove the theory.
This is second point of agreement, there is no way to experimentally prove the theory of evolution, which really should be called the theory of macroevolution.
Therefore, if we do not have observable evidence, we can believe evolution to be true, but we cannot base our belief on science, it is only believed because fine sounding arguments have convinced us, not science. Darwinian Evolution Theory contends that species evolved over time and change in “kind” – in other words, a fish became a primate, etc. However, there is no observable evidence we can point to where species changed in kind. Throughout time men have tried to claim the “missing link”, the transition of one species to man, but each time it is proved to be a hoax.
For example:
The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological fraud in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human. Although there were doubts about its authenticity virtually from the beginning, the remains were still broadly accepted for many years, and the falsity of the hoax was only definitively demonstrated in 1953. An extensive scientific review in 2016 established that amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson was responsible for the fraudulent evidence.
It turned out in the end that Piltdown was a great ape, but a 1953 investigation conducted long after Dawson’s death revealed it to be a modern ape bleached and artificially weathered to look like a 500,000-year-old jawbone. Research from 2010 suggests that Dawson acted alone in the fraud.
Nebraska man was another; although there was no deliberate hoax behind Nebraska Man, there was no Nebraska Man, either. The fossil was that of a wild pig called a peccary. Though now confined to Central and South America, the pigs roamed the Great Plains in the Pleistocene.
Nevertheless, the story of Nebraska Man snowballed out of control after the 1920s announcement. Harold Cook, the rancher who found it, simply believed it to be a higher primate. The press spun it out of control until it was practically a Nebraska caveman.
Although there are many other claims of the missing link that can be researched, ultimately, they all prove to be hoaxes. Why does this happen? It could be men trying to gain notoriety and significance; or maybe men prefer to ignore things that do not support the theories they want to be true. In any case, if we are going to believe science, we should have science to back it up; if we are going to believe something unproven to be true, we must call it what it is, a preferred belief not based in confirmed evidence.
As we consider this brief discussion, let’s ponder a few questions:
The Darwinian argument is – everything came from a single -cell organism and by natural selection, in a macro sense, one species became another giving us the ultimate in survival of the fittest. One question I have always been curious about is, if this is truly how everything came to be, what defense mechanism and survival development determined the pink flamingo. What environment evolved a bird that is pink, with long skinny legs because that was the best way to survive there?
Another question to ponder is the transition from water to land. Was there a species that had half gills, and half lung? If so, at what point was the lung developed enough to allow the species to leave the water permanently, and when did the gills quit developing in the species offspring?
If the theory of evolution were to be true, that would mean that at some point a species separated itself into male and female and continued in their development to the point where the only way to now procreate is through sexual intercourse.
One can believe the theory of evolution, but in considering these facts, you must also conclude it takes a tremendous amount of blind faith to believe it.
The last point I would like to make is the contradiction the theory of evolution has with the second law of thermal dynamics. The second law of thermal dynamics states that all matter goes from order to chaos, and that is easily observable; our bodies, our pets, or machines, our roads – everything gets worse not better. At what point in the evolution process did everything flip and go from developing into being amazingly organized and improving, such as, the eyeball, to start getting worse with time instead of better. Now men need reading glasses at 50 when, in theory, they should be improving, not degenerating. If the theory of evolution is science, then science contradicted itself and transitioned from development to chaos, order to disorder.
Things do change, babies turn into adults in 18 years, caterpillars turn to butterflies in weeks, tadpoles become frogs, but ultimately species do not change, and there is no evidence of this having ever happened.
The “over billions of years” argument is an attempt to stifle logic. I would just ask; does it seem logical that every species and type of that species had their beginning in a single-cell organism in a small body of water? The lion became a lion, the white tiger became a white tiger, and a dove became a dove over millions of years of transition from one species to another until we have what we now have?
A person does not need to immediately make the leap, “ok, I don’t believe in evolution, so I have to believe in creationism and become a Christian.” Instead, force the creationism account to stand up for itself, providing evidence in the same way we should demand evidence from the theory of evolution. But, before we do that, let’s address Carbon Dating (next time).
