In lesson 5, we discussed the idea that creation is a scientifically acceptable explanation for the origin of the Universe. In this lesson, we will examine the alleged “factuality” of evolution, as well as evidence that documents why the concept of creation is much more consistent with true science than the idea of organic evolution.

When we talk about the origin of the Universe and those things in it, we cannot speak as eyewitnesses or firsthand observers since none of us was present. Thus, any scientific discussion must be based on certain assumptions, hypotheses, or theories put in place after the fact. An assumption is something taken for granted, and represents a legitimate starting point for an investigation. A hypothesis is merely an educated guess or tentative assumption. A theory is a plausible general principle or set of principles that may be used to explain certain phenomena and that is supported by at least some facts.

Many evolutionists claim that evolution has been proven, and therefore must be spoken of not as a theory, but rather as a fact. Most people today, for example, have at least heard the names of Francis Crick and James Watson, the two scientists who shared the Nobel Prize for their discovery of the structure of DNA (the molecule within each living cell that carries the genetic information). Several years after their discovery, Dr. Watson wrote a book titled The Molecular Biology of the Gene in which he stated: “Today the theory of evolution is an accepted fact.” A few years later in the August 23, 1999 issue of Time magazine, famous Harvard evolutionist Stephen J. Gould said that “evolution is as well documented as any phenomenon in science, as strongly as the earth’s revolution around the sun rather than vice versa. In this sense, we can call evolution a ‘fact.’”

Is evolution a “fact” of science? No, it is not. A fact is defined as “an actual occurrence” or “something that has actual existence.” With that standard-usage definition in mind, consider the following.

Evolution cannot be considered a fact because it is based on a number of non-provable assumptions. Several years ago, a well-known evolutionist from Great Britain by the name of Gerald Kerkut boldly listed no less than seven such assumptions in his widely distributed book, The Implications of Evolution. The first two assumptions he listed were these: (1) spontaneous generation must have occurred; and (2) spontaneous generation must have occurred only once.

Spontaneous generation is the idea that something nonliving gave rise to something living—without any outside assistance. This concept is the very basis of organic evolution, since evolutionists believe that when the Universe first began it was composed solely of hydrogen (with perhaps a few atoms of helium). In order to get life started, they are forced to conclude that those nonliving, inorganic chemicals “somehow” turned into something living. But that “somehow” is an extremely difficult problem for the concept of evolution. Scientists have tried for centuries to document that spontaneous generation can occur. Yet every single attempt not only has failed, but failed miserably. No one ever has been able to prove that something nonliving can produce something living. Therefore, evolutionists simply “assume” that it happened.

Furthermore, they assume that it happened only once. But why? All of life is composed of a singular genetic code (the DNA of which we spoke earlier). Because that code is so extremely complicated, and because it is virtually the same throughout all living things (with only minor variations), evolutionists are forced to concede that the events that produced it must have occurred just once. To suggest that it could have happened more than once—and that it produced exactly the same code each time—would be ridiculous. No one would believe such—not even evolutionists.

There are two serious problems with all of this. First, something based upon an assumption never can be considered a “fact.” At best, any idea based on an assumption forever remains just that—an assumption. It is not possible, logically, to build a concept upon an assumption and then assert that it is a fact. Since spontaneous generation is the basis of all of evolution (obviously, you can’t get something to evolve if you can’t get it to live in the first place!), and since spontaneous generation is nothing more than an assumption (because it never has been documented scientifically, and all available evidence points against it), then evolution cannot be a fact.

Second, as all scientists know, one-time events cannot be studied by using the scientific method. Why is this the case? Science uses the five senses (touch, smell, sight, taste, and hearing) to study those things that are universal, dependable, and reproducible. That simply means that a scientist working in Hong Kong can do an experiment exactly like a scientist in New York City. If both use the same methods, both will get the same results—today, tomorrow, next year, or ten years from now. And their results can be repeated over and over again. But one-time events are neither universal nor dependable. And, by definition, they cannot be repeated.

Evolutionists admit that two of the seven non-provable assumptions upon which evolution is based center on the idea that spontaneous generation must have occurred, and that it must have occurred only once. This means that evolution cannot be a scientific fact. Dr. Kerkut admitted:

...[T]he attempt to explain all living forms in terms of evolution from a unique source...is premature and not satisfactorily supported by present-day evidence.... The supporting evidence remains to be discovered.... We can, if we like, believe that such an evolutionary system has taken place, but I for one do not think that “it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.”

Then, after discussing the various aspects of each of the seven non-provable assumptions upon which evolution is based, he observed:

The first point that I should like to make is that these seven assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification.... The evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it anything more than a working hypothesis.

The standard-usage definition of a fact is something that is “an actual occurrence” or “something that has actual existence.” Can any process be called “an actual occurrence” when the knowledge of how, when, where, what, and why is missing? If someone suggested that a certain skyscraper had merely “happened,” but that the how, when, where, what, and why were complete unknowns, would you be likely to call it a fact, or an “unproven assertion”? To ask is to answer. When the best that evolutionists can offer is an insufficient explanation for life’s origin in the first place, an equally inadequate mechanism for the evolution of that life once it “somehow” began by naturalistic processes, and a fossil record full of “missing links” to document its supposed course through time, we will continue to call their “fact” simply a theory (or, better yet, a hypothesis). Twisting the definition of the word “fact” is a poor attempt on the part of evolutionists to add credibility to a theory that lacks any factual merit whatsoever.

And it is not just creationists who have made this point. The well-known Australian molecular biologist and evolutionist, Michael Denton, addressed this very point in his 1985 book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. After admitting that no one ever has documented any evidence for the supposed evolutionary “chain of life” leading from one type of creature to another, Dr. Denton wrote: “The concept of the continuity of nature has existed in the mind of man, never in the facts of nature.” Thirteen years later, in his 1998 book, Nature’s Destiny, Dr. Denton shocked everyone when he said:

Whether one accepts or rejects the design hypothesis...there is no avoiding the conclusion that the world looks as if it has been tailored for life; it appears to have been designed. All reality appears to be a vast, coherent, teleological whole with life and mankind as its purpose and goal (emp. in orig.).

We agree with both of Dr. Denton’s statements. The “facts of nature” certainly do not support evolution. And the world most assuredly “appears to have been designed.”

Even evolutionists admit (although somewhat reluctantly at times) that design implies a Designer. The question then becomes: Who designed the Universe? It certainly was not those mythical parents, “Father Time” and “Mother Nature.” They do not possess the ability to “design” anything. Yet everywhere we look in the world around us, we see evidence of the most intricate kind of design—from our massive Universe to the tiny cells of which we are made. God—not evolution—is responsible. That is the most impressive “fact” we know.

One of the most impressive arguments for the theory of evolution is provided by the evidence from the comparative sciences—comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, comparative cytology, comparative biochemistry, etc. As scientists have worked in these various fields, and have learned how to compare one organism with another, basic similarities have been established between certain groups. When making comparisons of parts of organisms, scientists commonly speak of structures that are homologous structures (similar in appearance, as opposed to those that are analogous, or similar in function), suggesting that these particular structures go through similar stages of development, have similar attachments, etc.

Charles Darwin himself thought the argument from homology was one of the greatest single proofs of his theory. He wrote: “We have seen that the members of the same class, independently of their habits of life, resemble each other in the general plan of their organization.... Is it not powerfully suggestive of true relationship, of inheritance from a common ancestor?”

Admittedly, at first glance, descent from a common ancestor appears to be a very logical argument—an idea that seems to make a lot of sense. After all, isn’t that how we explain such similarities as brothers and sisters looking more alike than, say, cousins? And why is this the case? Because they have parents closer in common. Evolutionists have an impressive array of data at their disposal. They are quick to point out that the wing of the bat, the forefoot of the turtle, the forefoot of the frog, and the arm of the man all have the same general structure. Evolutionists also note, correctly, that the forefoot of the dog, the flipper of the whale, and the hand of the man contain essentially the same bones and muscles.

In more recent times, this argument has been carried even to the molecular level as scientists begin to compare similarities in blood groups, cytochrome C composition, enzymes, cellular DNA, and a host of other molecular units. It has been announced, for example, that the chimpanzee and the human have DNA that is similar 95% of the time.

What is the creationist’s response to all of this? Do similarities exist? And if so, is the evolutionists’ explanation the correct one that fits the facts of the case? First, let’s see how the creationist does not respond to this argument. Creationists do not deny similarities; they do exist. Creationists are not ignorant of the existence of such similarities. It is here, however, that an extremely valuable lesson can be learned in the creation/evolution controversy. That lesson is this: rarely is it the facts that are in dispute; instead, it is the interpretation placed on the facts that is in dispute. In cases of basic similarities, whether at the anatomical or biochemical levels, there is no good purpose to be served by denying that such similarities exist. Creationists and evolutionists both have access to the same facts. The evolutionist, however, looks at the data and says that similarity is proof of common ancestry. The creationist, on the other hand, examines the data and suggests that similarity is evidence of creation according to a common design. Both sides have an interpretation for the data at hand. And in many instances, either explanation might seem to work—at first glance.

However, the evolutionists’ argument is successful only if certain portions of the data on homology are presented. Furthermore, consider this: if similarity proves common ancestry, then dissimilarity proves that no common ancestry exists. Only when evolutionists are allowed to “pick and choose” the similarities that fit evolutionary theory (and reject the numerous differences) can the argument from homology work. When evolutionists present all the facts—including those documenting dissimilarity—the argument from homology fails completely.

One scientist, veterinarian R.L. Wysong, provided an extensive list of such data, among which were the following examples:

1. The octopus eye, pig heart, Pekingese dog’s face, milk of the donkey, and the pronator quadratus muscle of the Japanese salamander all are very similar to analogous human structures. Do these similarities show evolutionary relationships?

2. The weight of the brain in proportion to body weight is greater in the dwarf monkey of South America, the marmoset, than in man. Since this proportion is used to show relationship between primates and man, is the marmoset, therefore, more evolved than man?

3. The root nodules of certain leguminous plants and the crustacean, Daphnia, contain hemoglobin, the blood pigment found in man. Are these organisms closely related to man?

Such differences have caused evolutionists to search for a way to salvage the argument from homology. Thus, they have turned to molecular studies to establish common ancestry based on homology. However molecular studies in the past few years have yielded no better results. For example, within cells of living organisms are found chromosomes that carry the genes responsible for the organism’s genetic make-up. If there has been a gradual evolution from the simple to the complex, then the evolutionary scheme would predict there also would be an increase in chromosome number and quality as one moves up the evolutionary scale. But, in our day of advanced molecular technology, the evolutionary prediction has fallen on hard times. Note the following chart, comparing the actual chromosome numbers of several organisms with the evolutionary prediction.

CLICK HERE FOR CHART

The chromosome count does not “fit” what has been predicted, based upon the theory of evolution, since one of the predictions of the theory is increased complexity (and that most assuredly would include the chromosomes, since they are the carriers of the genetic material).

The facts simply do not agree with the predictions. Evolutionists suggest that as one ascends the “tree of life,” organisms should become increasingly separated by differences in biochemistry from the “earliest” and most “primitive” organisms. In fact, no evolutionary trend can be observed in the biochemical data—at least none that can be defended. There is no progression from one group to another that would show any kind of evolutionary sequence.

Facts such as those presented in this lesson, and in the previous one, could be multiplied many times over. The point, however, is that creationists have at their disposal an impressive arsenal of evidence to confirm the conclusion that creation fits the available scientific facts better than evolution. Creation scientists suggest that the scientific evidence in favor of both creation and evolution be presented thoroughly and fairly. Students, upon examining all the data and considering each alternative, then may weigh the implications and consequences of the two positions and decide for themselves which is credible and reasonable. That is good education and good science—in the finest tradition of academic freedom. Even Charles Darwin, in his “Introduction” to The Origin of Species in 1859, stated:

I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.

Many evolutionists, however, seek to smother all challenges from within or without the scientific or educational establishment, concealing the fallacies and weaknesses of evolution and adamantly opposing a hearing for the scientific case for creation. Why is this so? There may exist two possibilities. First, it may be that evolutionists consider people too ignorant, or too illiterate, to be exposed to these competing ideas of origins. Thus, they must be “protected” and carefully indoctrinated in “correct” ideas by those who consider themselves to be the intellectually elite—the sole possessors of truth. Second, having carefully and deliberately constructed this fragile tower of hypotheses piled on hypotheses, it may be that evolutionists are aware of the fact that evolution will fare badly if exposed to an open and determined challenge, and that if this is done, people will accept creation as the more logical of the two concepts of origins. Regardless, it is urgent that all the evidence be presented so that these two alternative concepts of origins—creation and evolution—may compete freely in the marketplace of ideas.

Published by Apologetics Press, Inc. Copyright © 2001 Revised 2016.

ApologeticsPress.org