Problems With Darwin's Theory of Evolution

By John G Frazier III, Ph. D.

This presentation has been adapted from the article, “Why Christians Believe in God,” on this web site. It has been selected 1) to focus the reader’s attention on the view of many contemporary scientists that evolutionary theory is simply not true in light of modern scientific discoveries, 2) to alert readers to the corrupting influences of evolution in our society and personal lives, 3) to describe the numerous benefits that come to a person when they have faith in the existence of a Creator God, and 4) to encourage people to adopt the view that God is the Creator of the universe and of life.

Darwin Defined

What exactly is Darwin’s Theory of evolution? First, “evolutionists believe life began by chance from the right combination of nonliving materials.” ¹ This is known as “chemical evolution.” The belief is that “a swirl of gases along with water touched by an electrical charge ignited a chemical reaction that generated the building blocks of life. No supernatural element was required; that is, life emerged purely by natural causes.” ² This view contradicts and displaces the biblical view in Genesis chapter 1, where an intelligent God supernaturally created life.

Second, “evolutionists believe simple life (forms) have changed over millions of years into more complex states by a process of natural selection.” ³ Thus “life arose naturally into a one celled animal, then mutated and changed or evolved, over millions of years into the various kinds of life we see today (with) humans being the highest on the chain. This process is said to be guided by what Darwin called ‘natural selection'” ⁴ …a process by which the weaker species die out and the stronger ones survive.

Third, evolutionists believe that all species, including humans, share a common genetic ancestry. “This transition from one kind or type of life form into another is called ‘macroevolution’ (literally, large evolution).” ⁵ This view also contradicts the Genesis chapter 1 view that God created each creature “to reproduce after its own kind.” ⁶ That is, in Genesis, each type of creature is separate from all others, reproduces in kind, and is not derived from other kinds.

Fourth, evolutionists believe in ‘microevolution’ (literally, small evolution). This describes changes which can occur within each kind of species, allowing there to be many different varieties of dogs or cats or cattle. It also allows plant life, such as wheat or corn, to be genetically modified. Changes within kinds are happening today. They are possible, observable, scientifically verifiable and are in keeping with the teaching of the Bible.

Some hold a theistic evolution view in which God is involved to some extent in the process of evolution. However, Darwin left little room for God in his theory. He put forth a materialistic view of the world which held that all that exists is physical matter, that there is no spirit and no God, and that all life can be accounted for by natural processes.

Darwin Doubted

Lee Strobel tells us that there was a group of 100 respected scientists who were skeptical of Darwinian Evolution. After PBS aired a seven-part television series titled Evolution, in which the narrator claimed “all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution” as does “every reputable scientist in the world,” ⁷ this group of 100 scientists “published a two-page advertisement in a national magazine (titled) ‘A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.'” ⁸ In their dissent, they stated: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.” ⁹

Viewers of the PBS series were not told that there were credible scientists who disagreed and doubted the viability of Darwinian assumptions, nor are students told this in high school and college science classes.

Darwin Discredited – Part 1

When evolution is taught, certain experiments, illustrations, fossil findings and anatomical similarities are presented to convince students of the viability of the theory. We will examine six of these representations to see what they tell us.

Jonathan Wells, PhD, PhD. Dr. Wells was a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute. His undergraduate degrees were in geology and physics and his doctorate degrees in molecular and cell biology. In one of his books, he did a scientific analysis of the symbols of evolution. After his analysis, Dr. Wells concluded that he could have little confidence in them. His appraisals ¹⁰ are represented in the following discussions.

The Miller Experiment: In this 1953 experiment, Stanley Miller attempted to reproduce that atmosphere of the primitive earth. Then electric sparks were shot into it to simulate lightening. The process produced some amino acids which are one of the building blocks of life. This result was said to support the idea that life could have emerged from mere physical matter solely as a result of natural processes.

Dr. Wells explained that the Miller experiment is now discredited. The scientific consensus is that Miller used an incorrect mixture of gasses to mimic the early earth atmosphere. Actually, no one really knows exactly what the early atmosphere was like. However, even if the best guess version of what that atmosphere was like were used in the same experiment today, the results would yield toxic substances which would destroy life, rather than produce life.

So why is the Miller Experiment still presented in textbooks on evolution? Dr Wells believes that this is because some scientists rigidly assume that naturalistic explanations are the only ones possible and are unwilling to consider any others. So their materialistic philosophy overrides their supposed scientific objectivity and impartiality. And when “intelligent design” is offered as an explanation, they say that explanation is unscientific.

Even so, we may ask: How close is science to discovering how life began? Dr Wells replies that science is not close at all. To create life, you have to create the right number of the right kind and in the right sequence of amino acids to create various protein molecules. Then you have to create the right number of the right kind and in the right sequence of protein molecules in order to get some of the right components for life. If you could do this (and no one can), then you have a bigger problem of putting these ingredients together with enzymes, DNA, and other materials to make a living cell.

“The problem of assembling the right parts in the right way at the right time…while keeping out the wrong (toxic) materials is simply insurmountable.” ¹¹ The truth is, naturalistic science simply does not have a theory which explains the emergence of life from non-life, and it appears there is no potential for finding one. In view of this, and of the very fact of life, and that life had a beginning, the evidence points strongly to the necessity of an “Intelligent Designer” for life to have been created.

Darwin’s Tree of Life: In Charles Darwin’s 1849 book, The Origin of the Species, he drew an illustration which depicted the development of life forms on a tree with the most ancient form at the bottom of the tree and the other forms, in ascending order of complexity, located higher and higher in the tree. This illustration represented Darwin’s belief that all life forms have descended from a common ancestor which lived in the distant past. Random variation working with natural selection was said to explain how primitive cells developed over vast periods of time into every species – from cells to fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds to mammals to human beings.

But is this a true picture? Dr Wells says “no,” because this scenario simply is not supported by the fossil record.

Darwin’s theory predicts gradual changes over long periods of time from a common ancestor. But the fossil record shows the opposite. Instead, major groups of complex animals emerged suddenly in geologic time with no evidence of ancestors; this is called the “Cambrian Explosion.” There wasn’t enough time (as required by evolutionary theory) between their appearances for them to have developed from one to the other until they got to the higher forms.

Further, the animals that appeared had significantly different body plans, strongly suggesting that they were independent of one another, and not derived from lower to higher forms. And, most telling, there is no fossil record of transitional forms, which would be required if Darwin’s theory were correct.

This calls into question Darwin’s assumption that all life has a common ancestor. Dr. Wells explains that “within a single species, common ancestry has been observed directly. And it’s possible that all cats – tigers, lions and so on – descended from a common (cat) ancestor.” ¹²(Microevolution). But the idea that lower life forms developed into higher life forms (Macroevolution) is not supported by the fossil record.

Darwin Discredited – Part 2

Haeckel’s Embryos: Ernst Haeckel produced a series of drawings, showing supposed similarities between the “embryos of a fish, salamander, tortoise, chicken, hog, calf, rabbit, and human.” ¹³ Dr Wells points out that there are some serious problems with these drawings. First, they were “faked,” that is, the images were distorted by Haeckel. In fact, he was accused of fraud by his colleagues. When compared, these drawings do not match up with photographs of actual embryos. Clearly, Haeckel wanted to force similarities and hide differences.

Second, Haeckel chose embryos of animals that resembled each other and omitted those which were dissimilar. Third, Haeckel claimed the drawings showed early-stage development, when they were actually mid-stage development. The actual early stage embryos show far more difference in appearance. Thus we have a situation in which “what is supposed to be primary evidence for Darwin’s theory – embryonic evidence – turns out to be false.” ¹⁴

The Archaeopteryx Missing Link: When Darwin published his theory in 1859, he acknowledged that the fossil records did not provide transitional forms showing species descending from other species. Just two years later, the archaeopteryx was discovered and was thought to be a “missing link between reptiles and modern birds.” ¹⁵ This creature had “wings, feathers, the wishbone of a bird, a lizard-like tail, and claws on its wings.” ¹⁶

However, Dr. Wells explains that this fossil is actually a member of an extinct group of birds, and not a reptile at all and therefore not a transitional form. Moreover, paleontologists have not been able to find transitional forms between the species over the last 150+ years! One would expect that these forms would have been found if Darwin’s theory were true. But they have not!

Homology in Vertebrate Limbs: Homology refers to similarities in vertebrate limbs. “For example, there are similar bone structures in a bat’s wing, a porpoise’s flipper, a horse’s leg, and a human’s hand.” ¹⁷ These similarities are used to support Darwin’s idea of common ancestry.

Dr. Wells points out that similarities alone do not provide an explanation for why they are there. To discover why they are there, science has pursued two lines of inquiry, embryonic developmental pathways and similar genes. Neither has given a satisfactory answer as to how these similarities have developed. So with science drawing a blank, Dr. Wells thinks it is reasonable to believe the similarities are there because these life forms were made by the same intelligent designer who used similar patterns for different animals.

Java Man: The last representation we will discuss is that of a series of “apelike creatures” drawn so that they gradually change into the image of a man. This parade of images was drawn after a Dutch scientist, Eugene Dubois, found some bones in 1891 and 1892. He claimed that “Java Man” dated back half a million years and represented a “smaller-brained ancestor (of man). He was, according to Dubois, the missing link between apes and humans.” ¹⁸

But his evidence was scanty at best. All he found was a skullcap, a femur (thigh bone), and three teeth. Thus, the extrapolation from these items to Java man was pure speculation motivated by his expectations of what evolutionary theory would predict to be true. On top of that, Dubois conducted a careless excavation of the site and it turned out the femur bone didn’t belong with the skullcap. Since then, an anatomist determined the skullcap to be that of a human with normal brain capacity, showing that “Java man” was actually human!

Darwin Discredited – Part 3

So what does this examination of Darwinian Evolution show us? We have 1) a failed origin of life experiment, 2) the Cambrian Explosion which disproves the gradual development of the species, 3) fake embryo drawings which bring into question common ancestry, 4) a fossil record which does not show transitional forms required by evolutionary theory, 5) similarities in bone structure between species which point to “design,” and 6) falsified fossil evidence. Faced with this body of evidence, how can anyone continue to believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution?

Dr. Wells concludes that, on the one hand, modern scientific discoveries render Darwin’s ideas bankrupt for lack of evidence, and that, on the other hand, the evidence of modern science points strongly toward the need for a Designer. The following: (1) Embryonic development, (2) the Cambrian Explosion (3) Homology, and (4) the origin of life studies are all more in agreement with design than with Darwinism.

I Don’t Have Enough “Faith” to Believe That

Lee Strobel observes that to believe in evolution, he would have to believe ¹⁹ that:

Something (the entire universe) came from nothing.
Life came from non-life.
Organized information came from random occurrences.
Fine-tuning came from disorganization.
Consciousness came from unconscious material.
Reason came from non-reason.

But he could not believe any of these things. To him the theory of evolution lost credibility. It didn’t make sense or even account for the body of scientific evidence.

Destructive Implications

When people embrace a belief in evolution and atheism, they most often do not realize the philosophical implications of this view of life. If there is no God, what then? If human beings and their thoughts are no more than the results of the random activity of atoms, what then? The implications are truly devastating. If there is no God and if we are only the product of random forces, then logically:

Life has no meaning.
Life has no purpose. There is no basis for morality.
There is no free will.
There is no life after death.
Human life has no value. The dignity of man is destroyed.
There is loss of hope.
There is no basis for altruism
There is no basis for love.
There will be no ultimate justice.
Benevolence and cruelty become equal because of the absence of an adequate moral standard, lack of moral accountability and the depreciation of the value of others. And, if randomness rules the day, all actions become arbitrary.
Without hope and love, man is cast into an existential freefall of despair.
Men and women have no obligation to anyone, no responsibility to live up to, and no one to answer to but themselves.
The individual’s personal value becomes zero and he may do unspeakably horrible things to his fellow man because it doesn’t matter.
There is no basis for having confidence in anyone’s thoughts or ideas, because such thoughts would be merely the result of random, purposeless molecular activity.

Contrast this with the Christian world view. For people who know that God is their Creator:

Life has meaning and purpose.
There is a real basis for morality, love, and altruism.
There is free will.
There is life after death.
Man has dignity and value.
There is genuine hope.
There is an expectation for ultimate justice.
Moral lines are drawn and we know the difference between benevolence and cruelty.
We have the privilege of assuming responsibility for ourselves, others, and toward God.
We can value our self and others because we are made in the image of God.
We treat our fellow man with respect and kindness because they too are made in the image of God.
We may have confidence in the validity of our thoughts and ideas because God has made us rational, sentient beings.

It is interesting to note that most people feel they have a right to these hopeful views, especially when it comes to the value of one’s self, even if they are agnostic or atheist. But what gives the atheist the right to think this way? By his own standards he has no such right, but he does so anyway. Why? I think it is because they “know” in their inmost being that they have intrinsic value. This to me is God’s witness to them through their own humanity that He is real and He is their Creator.

We Have a Serious Problem

Evolutionary theory is accepted and assumed to be true by many in our society. It is propagated in schools and universities, advanced by the media, it is the go-to explanation in government and business, and on and on.

Someone once said that it is not so much what is taught in class, but it is what is caught in class that changes people’s thinking and therefore their lives. When we are told that we are the product of random forces, we may think, well, that’s just science. But we usually don’t think through the implications, which are that we have no value and life is meaningless. Then on a subconscious level we live in keeping with these implications without ever realizing they are there.

We can see it in our society today. People lack meaning, purpose, hope, and a solid sense of identity. Their morals are compromised. They don’t value themselves or others, and they may treat others with hate and violence.

Belief in Creator – God

If people knew for a fact, that they and the universe have been created by a Creator-God who loves them, it would make an enormous difference for good in their lives and in our society. This is why it is so important to know that there are credible reasons for belief in God. Once people understand this, it will improve their lives immeasurably, and besides, it’s true!

More evidence for God’s Existence may be found in the article “Why Christians Believe in God.”