Is evolution true or is there another explanation?

Asking whether evolution is true rarely produces a calm conversation. The “evolution versus creation” debate is emotionally charged and clouded by misunderstanding.

Today, Darwinian evolution is promoted, and accepted, as fact almost universally. Suggesting a divine creator usually attracts derision, or suspicion of religious fanaticism.

Surely there is a clear way to unpack the question. Is evolution true?

What is your definition of evolution?

The answer depends largely on the definition, because blurred definitions lead to immediate misunderstanding. The word “evolution” usually means one of three things.

Definition 1: Change over time

This is the broadest meaning. Things change state through natural processes.

Our surroundings tend to move from order towards disorder unless we intervene. Left alone, systems generally become less orderly, not more. They do not acquire new information or become more advanced.

Critics note that the sun supplies energy that allows local increases in order. We do not believe this accounts for the appearance of new biological information.

Ideas and opinions “evolve” with experience and new information. Systems “evolve” as better methods are found. Change over time is plainly observable, whether or not the change is beneficial. It is often described as something evolving from one state to another.

Definition 2: Small changes over time that show new characteristics

This is often called the Special Theory of Evolution, more popularly known as microevolution.

This is change within a single species, or a small group of organisms, over a short period. It happens within a genetic group, usually to help survival in a given environment, and can occur within a very small number of generations.

These small adaptations draw on existing genetic material and produce different characteristics or traits. This process is also known as natural selection.

Each descendant keeps the same genetic identity. Humans, for example, vary hugely in appearance but remain human. They do not mutate into a different kind of creature. By “kind”, we mean a group of organisms that share a common genetic blueprint. Variation is possible within a kind, but one kind does not give rise to another.

Darwin’s finches on the Galápagos Islands are the popular example. During a severe drought, finches with larger, deeper beaks were better able to crack the tough seeds that remained. Those with smaller beaks were less likely to survive.

In our view, this narrowed the gene pool rather than adding to it. The survivors are still finches, and we are not aware of any new genetic information being created. If the pressure continued, the variation for smaller beaks could disappear from the population.

We argue that the same applies to other organisms. There is astonishing variety within species, but organisms adjust to their environment while remaining within their genetic blueprint.

Definition 3: Major changes that produce new kinds of organisms

This is often called the General Theory of Evolution, more commonly known as macroevolution, or Darwinism.

This describes major change in which one type of organism gives rise to another, at the level of the species and higher groups. It is the “molecules-to-man” hypothesis. Every living organism, plant and animal, is said to have evolved from a single cell into more complex forms and other species.

The mechanism is the same as in microevolution, but the changes require far longer, often many millions of years. They include large-scale transitions, such as fish to reptiles and reptiles to birds.

The fundamental difference is that macroevolution requires new genetic information to be added to the organism. In our view, there is no firm evidence that such changes take place, and we do not believe this definition is supported by the scientific method. Evolutionary biologists disagree, and we address their position below.

What evidence is there for Darwinian evolution?

Definitions 1 and 2 have clear scientific support. They can be observed and tested with relative ease.

For definition 3, we believe the case rests on inference and extrapolation rather than direct observation. We also believe the evidence we would expect to find is largely absent.

Fossil record

If macroevolution were true, we would expect to find a great many transitional forms: fossils caught in the act of changing from one state to another. Remember, this would happen over millions of years. Given the time involved, we would expect far more than a handful of specimens. The world would be littered with in-between forms.

Evolutionary biologists point to fossils such as Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx and early whales, which they say appear in the rock layers the theory predicts. In our view, these remain disputed and fit within existing groups.

We also note that major animal groups appear relatively suddenly in the Cambrian, without the long chain of intermediates the theory predicts. A handful of disputed specimens does not fill that gap.

The fossil record has long been presented as real evidence for evolution. We question whether it is. Drawings and artists’ impressions often go beyond what the fossils show, and the term “missing links” reflects that gap.

Dating methods

Dating methods are used to estimate how long fossils have been preserved. Each relies on assumptions.

One is that the rate of decay has remained constant throughout the period. Another is that the fossil’s environment has remained undisturbed. We question whether either can be confirmed over such lengths of time.

Geologists respond that independent methods are cross-checked against each other. We argue that results which conflict with the accepted timeline are sometimes set aside, which raises the risk of circular reasoning.

Natural selection

“Survival of the fittest” describes how organisms adapt to their environment and compete for resources. In our view, selection works only on existing genetic information within a species and does not produce new genes. This falls under definition 2.

We therefore regard natural selection as a selective process, not a creative one. For macroevolution to be true, an explanation is needed for how new genetic information arises. Evolutionary biologists point to gene duplication followed by divergence. We remain unconvinced that this accounts for changes on the scale macroevolution requires.

Bacteria

Advances in technology have let us understand the bacterial world far better through microscopic research. Bacteria are often cited as evidence for evolution because they reproduce rapidly. This lets us observe evolutionary processes at great speed. Mutations occur quickly, as with antibiotic resistance.

Again, bacteria display different characteristics as their environment changes, for example when an antibiotic is introduced. We argue that this is evidence for definition 2. In every example we know of, bacteria remain bacteria. They have not evolved into a more complex organism.

In our view, these changes involve the loss or alteration of existing genetic information, not the addition of new information. Some experiments, such as Lenski’s, report bacteria gaining new abilities, such as feeding on citrate. We regard these as modifications of existing features, not new information.

Even a “superbug” is, in our view, a concentrated gene pool adapted to its conditions, like the finches that survived the drought. We see this as natural selection (microevolution), not evidence of macroevolution.

Each species contains a vast range of characteristics. Yet in our view, there is no strong evidence of the intermediary changes that would account for one species evolving into another. We do not believe the evidence comes close to explaining the “molecules-to-man” hypothesis, which is so often presented as proven fact.

We find the claim that “evolution goes too slowly for us to observe today” unsatisfying, because it asks for confidence without direct observation.

Genetics and anatomy

Evolutionary biologists point to shared DNA and shared anatomy as evidence of common ancestry. Humans and chimpanzees, for example, share the same viral insertions in the same genomic positions, and similar bone structures serve different functions across species, from bats to whales to humans.

In our view, similarity is also what we would expect from a common designer reusing effective designs, as human engineers do. Shared features show relationship. They do not show that one kind became another. We also note that functions continue to be found for DNA once dismissed as “junk”.

The origin of life

Evolutionary biologists treat the origin of life as a separate question from evolution: evolution describes how life changes once it exists, not how it began. Most say science addresses natural mechanisms and cannot rule on whether God exists, and many scientists who accept evolution are Christians.

We accept the distinction, but do not think it settles the question. Evolution still requires a first self-replicating cell, and that cell already carries complex information. For us, the source of that information remains the central question.

Where is the evidence?

We accept that new species can form within a kind. That is definition 2, and it is not in dispute. What we do not accept is that the evidence supports the “molecules-to-man” hypothesis, which is so often presented as proven fact.

We find the claim that “evolution goes too slowly for us to observe today” unsatisfying, because it asks for confidence without direct observation.

We recognise that many Christians accept evolution. We respectfully disagree, for the reasons set out above.

The case for design

Some assert that “junk” DNA and “vestigial” organs are evidence of bad design. That does not prove the absence of design. Evolutionists also sometimes claim the human eye is flawed and so could not be the work of an intelligent designer. We find this claim difficult to accept. We have not built anything close to a replacement, yet we are asked to believe that unguided processes produced something far superior to anything intelligent, creative humans can make.

Consider the heart. From conception, it pumps blood around your body without ever breaking down. It starts very small and keeps working as it grows. It works constantly, without stopping, for your whole life. The same is true of all our organs. We cannot get close to designing anything so clever, and we find it implausible that such systems are the result of an unguided process.

A single cell is mind-boggling in its complexity. DNA, our genetic code, is so complex that we are only beginning to understand it. Before any cell can replicate, a DNA code must already exist. That code is incredibly complex, and we hold that information requires a designer.

In Darwin’s day, the technology did not exist to look inside organisms and see their complex structures. Darwin himself wrote:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” ~ Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (1859), Chapter VI, “Difficulties on Theory”, section “Modes of Transition”

We believe his theory of macroevolution does not account for what we now know of these structures, yet it is still promoted as fact.

What now?

The world is certainly not perfect. It is a mess. Yet we find it implausible to explain the world around us without a creator.

Look around you and use your own senses. Does it seem plausible that the world came into existence through a huge explosion that spawned life, beauty and order? Does the evidence not point to a creator God?

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Romans 1:20 NIV)

Please do not ignore this question. The world was created perfect but ruined by humanity. We believe Jesus Christ will be returning to restore things soon. Please invest the time to look into the person of Jesus Christ. He will change your life if you let him.

Following the evidence

It is not easy for scientists to speak out about evidence that favours creation or intelligent design. We believe those who do can be marginalised, and some report losing their jobs, as we cover in an earlier blog, Science and the Bible – Lost Freedom. Here are a few examples of people following the evidence:

Evolution vs God

We also recommend watching this short film: