Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun… [1]

Richard Dawkins – The Selfish Gene

 

IS EVOLUTION REALLY A SCIENTIFIC FACT?

 

James M. Percarpio

 

Many Darwinists assert that naturalistic evolution is a scientific fact, which no longer has any reason for doubt. If ever any questions are even raised against Darwinian theory they are immediately dismissed by evolutionists as ignorant religious fundamentalism, or are met with vehement anger. [2] Although there is admittedly some good circumstantial evidence to surmise that evolution has taken place in the manner Darwinists have supposed, [3] some key aspects of it which are accessible to scientific verification are indeed lacking. In particularly, much of the contention centers on a specific aspect of the theory known as macroevolution and the questionable scientific evidence that purportedly supports it. With this in mind, it will be my intention in this essay to challenge the notion that the proposed mechanisms in evolutionary theory can justify the claim that macroevolution is a scientific fact.

 

Microevolution & Macroevolution

The two key terms used in evolutionary theory to describe the degree of morphological change in an organism are called, microevolution and macroevolution. [4] Microevolution refers to small changes that occur in organisms, which result in slight and often imperceptible morphological change with no additional genetic information. Examples of microevolution include: the numerous breeds of dogs and cats attained from selective breeding, bacteria becoming resistance to penicillin, or cows that are breed to be more efficient at producing milk. Macroevolution on the other hand, would be the result of large-scale morphological change, or to put it more technically, “macroevolution refers to wholesale changes of physical and behavioral characteristics requiring the input of new information and/or greater complexity.” [5] When Darwinists say that dogs eventually evolved into whales and lizards into birds, those would be examples of macroevolution.

      Microevolution has been observed and empirically verified, and because of that it is considered a scientific fact that is no longer in doubt. Macroevolution, on the other hand, has not been observed nor has it been empirically verified, and because of that I believe it is irresponsible to assert that macroevolution is a scientific fact as well.

 

What is Science?

Since Darwinists believe that macroevolution is indeed a scientific fact it is important then to have some understanding of what science is, as well as an understanding of what it takes to justify calling something a scientific fact. Although it is actually difficult to even define science, [6] I will for the purpose of this essay use what I believe is a fair, lucid and concise definition of this term. Science comes from the Latin word scientia, “to know,” and it can be defined as; the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena. [7] The field of science consists of two main bodies: Pure Science, which is the pursuit of knowledge, and Applied Science, which is the search for practical uses of scientific knowledge. The theory of evolution would fit under the title of pure science since its primary goal is to understand and explain the origin and development of life. And this field of study progresses through a process called the Scientific Method, which consists of several distinct operations:

 

1.     Making observations.

2.     Looking for patterns in the observations.

3.     Formulating theories.

4.     Designing experiments to test the theories. [8]

 

Understanding this particular fact becomes very important, because as you can plainly see “science” is actually just a methodology and not something which was recently discovered to be “out there” (like mathematical truths for example), nor is it some sort of entity or absolute reality that exists on its own. Also, I believe it is important to recognize that other fields like psychology, history and sociology are called social sciences because the people involved in those fields employ the same methodology. Furthermore, this methodology is not infallible because it relies on human beings whom, although can be objective and logical, can also at times be influenced by emotions, personal biases as well as their guiding presuppositions.

      So with this clearer understanding of science in mind let’s consider here just what it means to assert that something is a scientific fact. I believe that a simple example like water going through its phase transition from liquid to solid will be very helpful in demonstrating how the scientific method operates in establishing scientific facts. So let’s look at how the four steps operate with this simple example. [9] Step 1 – Making observations: I observe that when water gets cold, it goes from a liquid state to a solid state; i.e. freezes. Step 2 – Looking for patterns in the observations: It appears as though this transition process takes place when it gets to a particular degree of coldness. Step 3 – Formulating theories: Based on the observations and the patterns therein, my theory is that water freezes at a specific temperature. Step 4 – Developing experiments to test the theories: I conduct experiments using an appropriate and calibrated measuring device (in this case a thermometer) to see if this is indeed the case. And low and behold after conducting numerous experiments I discover that water consistently freezes at 0 degrees centigrade. And so after all that I make the statement “It is a scientific fact that water freezes at 0 degrees centigrade.”

      Now let’s assume someone was to question that assertion and says something like “I won’t believe this until I personally perform this experiment myself and observe the phenomena with my own eyes.” Well in this case the task is quite simple, the “skeptic” can easily take a bowl of water, place it in a cooling apparatus, then slowly keep lowering the temperature until the water freezes, and record the temperature at which it took place. Although this is a simple example all scientific facts in the natural world are established in this fashion. Therefore, as we consider again the above explanation, and the two aspects of the scientific method that I emphasized, which are extremely significant for the purposes of my argument – observation and experimental verification – we will clearly see how the theory of macroevolution falls desperately short of being a scientific fact.

 

The Mechanisms of Change

The entire Darwinian paradigm hinges on the assertion that random mutations coupled with natural selection were sufficient to develop all life including humans. These are the two primary mechanisms in evolutionary theory that are purported to have been responsible for the large-scale transitions of macroevolution. But as we shall see, such an assertion is more a matter of faith than a scientific fact.

      Mutations are assumed to be the genetic agent responsible for the large-scale morphological change, and then it would be left up to nature to “select” the most “fit” mutants available. A hypothetical example would be a wolf having, at least one of its offspring that, because of a genetic mutation, had seal-like characteristics (i.e. webbed “paws” and stunted legs), and because of this had a competitive advantage in the struggle for life. Because it survived, and hopefully had a suitable mate (with a similar mutation) who also survived, was able to reproduce more offspring like itself. Such scenarios would continue to happen in the course of time until it eventually becomes a whale. It must be said that such a scenario is not only purely hypothetical but desperately imaginative as well, and sorely lacks any credible scientific evidence. [10] Trying to go from a dog to a whale or from a lizard to a bird requires beneficial mutations resulting in changes in; skeletal structure, vital organs, epidermis, behavioral characteristics, and instincts, all occurring simply by accident! But even despite the lack of evidence evolutionists are adamantly convinced that no intelligent mind was needed to assist in the evolution of life, and are certain that mutations and natural selection can do the job, as Phillip Johnson notes:

 

Darwinists know that the mutation-selection mechanism can produce wings, eyes, and brains not because the mechanism can be observed to do anything of the kind, but because their guiding philosophy assures them that no other power is available to do the job. [11]

 

And so it is not the actual scientific evidence that compels Darwinists to their conclusions, rather it is their anti-theistic worldview and naturalistic presuppositions that provides them the a priori foundation to approach this issue.

 

Mutations

According to evolutionists, mutations are “the mechanism by which fish fins turned into amphibian legs, reptilian scales became bird feathers and humans ended up with a larger, more complex brain than their primate ancestors.” [12]

      A mutation is technically defined as “an identifiable change in the genetic constitution of an individual, an alteration in the sequence of nucleotide bases on the genome’s DNA.” [13] Mutations can be brought about by environmental factors such as heat, chemicals, or radiation, [14] or they can also occur by copying errors during reproduction, and it is the latter which are supposed to have been primarily responsible for the large-scale transitions of macroevolution. To better understand what a mutation is and to appreciate the absurdity of such a claim it is necessary to grasp a few basic facts about genetics.

      The biochemical foundation in the reproduction of life involves three necessary polymers: DNA, RNA, and proteins. The DNA consists of the blueprints or “instructions” on how to make an organism; for example it’s our DNA that determines such things as our height, eye color, number of fingers and toes, organs, etc. Then the RNA takes the information from DNA (a process called transcription) and then brings the information to all the various parts of the cell (a process called translation) where the manufacture of a specific proteins take place. With regards to the proteins, which are the building blocks of life, Michael Denton presents the following analogy:

 

If we think of the cell as being analogous to a factory, then the proteins can be thought of as analogous to the machines on the factory floor which carry out individually or in groups all the essential activities on which the life of the cell depends. [15]

 

And with regards to the three polymers together he pushes the analogy even further:

 

In terms of our analogy we can think of RNA molecules as photocopies of the master blueprint (DNA) which are carried to the factory floor where the technicians and engineers convert the abstract information of the blueprint (RNA) into the concrete form of the machine. [16]

 

      In the process of reproduction an organism is essentially just making a copy of itself, and because of genetic variability there are usually slight differences between the parents and offspring (which account for the differences of microevolution). Although this copying occurs virtually error free “to a far higher degree than the most efficient man-made copying systems, there are occasional mistakes.” [17] These errors which sometimes do occur are referred to as mutations. Technically speaking then, mutations are mistakes occurring on the DNA sequence of an organism. What this ultimately means is that the wrong information is passed from the DNA to the RNA, and hence the wrong type of protein is manufactured in the cell. The effects of mutations, although sometimes  neutral, are almost always harmful, and only on very rare occasions are they beneficial. Although exact numbers would admittedly be difficult to come by, it is indeed unarguable that the ratio of harmful mutations to beneficial ones is quite significant as indicated by Hugh Ross:

 

Geneticists observe that deleterious mutations outnumber beneficial mutations by 10,000 to one at best, and possibly by as much as 10 million to one. [18]

 

      Now it needs to be said that there are obvious problems with any sort of reasoning which attributes an increase in information and complexity to copying errors! This is akin to saying that the improvements to automobiles have been due to copying errors in the engineering blueprints! Of course evolutionists do try to lend support to their position concerning the role of mutation with some evidence, but the examples they cite are rather trivial and come no where near what is required for macroevolution. [19] Evolutionists irresponsibly extrapolate the fact that mutations do occur to the position that they must be responsible for the large-scale changes of macroevolution. 

 

Natural Selection

The term “Natural Selection” AKA “Survival of the Fittest” is synonymous with Darwinian theory. According to the Darwinists natural selection acted as the lone guiding force in the evolution of life. It was because of natural selection that some species survived while others have died out, and why new species were able to emerge. Ironically there are actually very few real time examples of natural selection that have been observed, and there is no evidence of the mutation-macroevolution-natural selection scenario. [20] Although sometimes more sophisticated terms are used by evolutionists in place of natural selection such as; “adaptive differential reproduction” or “descent with modification,” it is essentially a game of semantics and just another way of saying those that have survived have survived. The science writer, Richard Milton, summarized this point quite well:

 

Thus “the survival of the fittest,” or “natural selection,” or “differential reproduction,” sheds no light on the mechanism of evolution and is only another way of saying that some animals survive and prosper while others die out – an observation of limited value.

      …As a theory, natural selection makes no unique predictions but instead is used retrospectively to explain every outcome: and a theory that explains everything in this way, explains nothing. Natural selection is not a mechanism: it is a rationalization after the fact. [21]

 

The consequence is this. Natural selection, as a scientific theory actually can not tell us how and why some animals have survived and why others did not, nor can it tell us how and why we as humans came into existence. The mantra of “natural selection” used by the evolutionist turns out to be no more scientific than a Christian saying that is how God so providentially planned it.

 

The Appeal to Chance

In the Darwinian paradigm the whole mutation-selection mechanism is based on purely chance events. Evolutionists delight in telling us that we humans were simply the end result of fortuitous accidents in the history of life, and furthermore they believe that such a conclusion is a scientific fact. But is that really the case? The appeal to chance has two fundamental problems associated with it. Michael Denton has poignantly articulated the first of these problems:

 

If complex computer programs cannot be changed by random mechanisms, then surely the same must apply to the genetic programs of living organisms. The fact that systems in every way analogous to living organisms cannot undergo evolution by pure trial and error and that their functional distribution invariably conforms to an improbable discontinuum comes, in my opinion, very close to a formal disproof of the whole Darwinian paradigm of nature. By what strange capacity do living organisms defy the laws of chance which are apparently obeyed by all analogous complex systems? [22]

 

The second point I want to make with regards to “chance” is this. Even if one holds that the theory of evolution is scientifically sound (as do some theists), an appeal to chance can not be part of it scientifically. In the dictionary chance is defined as “The abstract nature or quality shared by unexpected, random, or unpredictable events.” [23] Chance is indeed an abstract concept, and consequently is not subject to the scientific method (as is the case for any abstract concept such as love or beauty). In particularly this is the case with past events which have metaphysical implications concerning the questions of purpose and meaning. Therefore the appeal to chance is simply a position one holds a priori based – again – on an atheistic worldview.

 

Not a Scientific Fact

In conclusion I would like to sum things up as follows. The two biggest problems plaguing the theory of macroevolution is that the purported transitions have not been observed in real time, and the genetic mechanism of mutation has not been verified by experimental tests. You see, the onus is on the evolutionist to demonstrate the creative power of random mutations and natural selection via observable experiments. I do not see any reason why intelligent scientists can not reproduce this purported “mindless, random, purposeless” process in the lab.

      For over the past 100 years scientists have been putting the theory of evolution to experimental test only to discover that life is not as simple as first assumed. What they have found is a complexity that far surpasses any of our meager human accomplishments. The discovery of the amazing technology behind biological life, coupled with the failure of evolutionists to demonstrate the creative power of mutations and natural selection has, in my opinion, dealt a serious blow to the theory of macroevolution. Michael Denton has summed up the current situation concerning macroevolution (Darwin’s general theory) very well:

 

His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by gradual successive accumulations of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe. [24]

 

 

 

 

 

END NOTES