Conclusions on the Evolution Controversy

The evolution debate on this blog has resulted in the most vigorous discussion yet, but it is somewhat off topic and I’d like to move onto other things. But, since it’s my blog, I get the last word (except for your comments of course).

My background: I am informed on the subject of evolution as I was once a biology major in college, until I realized I was facing starvation upon graduation. I then changed my major to Business and Accounting. Nevertheless, I was thoroughly convinced of the truth of evolution by the time I graduated, and was not particularly troubled by it. I figured the universe and everything in it was made by God, and it wasn’t up to me to dictate to Him how He should go about it.

Below I consider why I found evolution so believable and why I’ve changed my mind.

1. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny – embryos of higher life forms seem to repeat their evolutionary development, starting off as one celled organisms that become a blastula (like a sponge), then a gastrula (simple animals with a tummy) then a fish (with gills, a simple heart, etc) and on until maturity. However, the apparent replay of evolutionary development in an embryo is subjective and based on appearance, not functionality (the so-called gill slits in human embryos have no actual function).

2. Homology – organisms in a class, like mammals, tend to be similar in anatomy and blood and immunities as other organisms in their class, insinuating that they all derived from a common ancestor. This is also subjective and unprovable. If the basic architecture of a bear works well for the bear, why shouldn’t it also work well for another mammal (like a horse)? Evolutionists resort to their own religious or metaphysical arguments in the issue of homology and other aspects of evolution, claiming that if God made the animals they would all be constructed differently. In short, they use their own personal conceptions of God to argue for evolution.

3. Vestigial organs – Unused organs have long been cited as compelling evidence for evolution, like the appendix, hair covering mans’ body, the tail bone or coccyx, the pineal gland, etc. Many organs believed to be vestigial when Darwin was alive have now been found to be functional (the appendix functions as part of the immune system and the coccyx is a fastening point for certain ligaments). This argument in favor of evolution has lost enormous steam since 1859, the date Origin of Species was published.

4. Irreducible Complexity – Recent arguments against evolution state that complex mechanisms like the human eye could not have evolved, since they are composed of numerous complex structures and systems that are interdependent and necessary for the functionality of the eye. Darwin himself admitted this issue, using the eye as an example, but argued that “counterintuitive observations” shouldn’t be used to refute the theory of evolution, because we can’t always dismiss complex phenomena as impossible based solely on our intuition. (Unless of course, the phenomenon is creationism or God.) Ann Coulter humorously compares the “counter-intuitive” argument to the Marx Brothers, who used to ask, “Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?” Evolutionists live by a double standard in this argument, because they have no problem using their intuition to confirm evolution where there is no testable proof.

5. The fossil record – In college I was most impressed by drawings of various horses that seemed to follow a clear evolutionary path, with simple and small horses with toes developing into larger horses with less toes, until we get to the modern horse with no toes, only one hoof per foot. Lately I have learned that the famous horse drawings were largely mistaken. Many of the horses lived at the same time as the other horses, and when new species appeared in the fossil record, they did so suddenly.

The basic problem with the fossil record is its almost complete absence of any animals that could be considered transitional forms. It does not support the theory of evolution. In fact, when Darwin first published Origin of Species his biggest critics were not ministers but paleontologists.

6. The Cambrian explosion – In a period of about 5 million years, all of the modern forms of life suddenly appeared with no apparent ancestors or precursors. This is one of the most troubling problems for evolutionists.

7. Evolutionists’ use of metaphysical arguments – almost all major evolutionary theorists justify the theory as being true only because creation can’t be true. They argue that if God created life, He would have done a better job of it, made different species better adapted to their environments, and would have created the species all at once rather than over millions of years. I mean, what was God doing, tinkering around and experimenting? However, the theory of evolution should not rest on evolutionists’ personal beliefs about God or the nature of God, as these are decidedly unscientific arguments.

8. The cell – The smallest unit of life, the cell, is mind-boggling in its complexity. How it could have somehow developed from a puddle of organic goo definitely strains credulity. Even smaller than a cell, a strand of DNA is very complicated and the same argument applies.

9. The flexibility of the theory of evolution -- The theory of evolution has been adapting itself to new facts over the past 150 years. The theory is very adaptible, in that its proponents assume it to be true and so it is bent, scissored and rearranged to explain new facts as they arise.

10. The lack of laboratory evidence -- the theory cannot be proven in the laboratory as can other theories; it has no premises or principles that can be demonstrated experimentally, no outcomes that can be predicted and thus proven. The theory of evolution has got to be the shakiest theory in the history of science. It is all built on presupposition and conjecture.

Since I had my “Road to Damascus” moment a week ago and switched sides in this debate, I am doing something I would never have considered only a few months ago: I am reading books that rebut evolution. I am currently reading Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil by Cornelius G. Hunter, a biophysicist. Hunter is one of a growing number of scientists who have grave doubts about the accuracy of Darwin’s theory. Hunter is not sensationalistic nor does he espouse religious views in his book. He merely deals with the major premises of the theory of evolution, the evidence that does exist and the problems with it, and does so in an objective tone. I will read more books on the subject when I finish this one.

What does this all mean to me personally? If evolution didn’t create life on Earth, what natural or supernatural forces did? I can’t answer that because I don’t know, but I do know that my sense of wonder at life has been largely restored.