Evolution: Fact or Fiction (Part 1)

On August 11, 1999, the Kansas State Board of Education made headlines around the world by daring to question the ” fact” of evolution. The board (contrary to erroneous media reports) did not ban the teaching of evolution but simply deleted evolution from state assessment tests of student performance, since evolution was deemed to be an unproven theory. Proponents of evolution were outraged that anyone would dare question the absolute certainty of their explanation for the origin of life. Robert Palazzo, an associate professor of molecular bioscience at the University of Kansas, signed a protest letter to the Governor of Kansas claiming that “the concept of evolution is inextricable from the language of all life sciences and is a cornerstone for learning by all those who seek an education in basic science, medicine, and ecology.” 

Maxine Singer, president of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, wrote in an August 16 column in the Washington Post that “Omitting evolution from biology (which the Kansas Board never proposed) is comparable to leaving the U.S. Constitution out of civic lessons. Evolution is the framework that makes sense of the whole natural world…”  

The strident defenders of evolution got their way. In 2001, a new Board of Education in Kansas reversed the previous decision, and evolution was once again presented in Kansas classrooms as a foundational fact of biology.

Is the case for evolution as solid as its advocates would have us believe? Are the only people who question evolution Bible-thumping pinheads who refuse to acknowledge “facts” in order to hold on to the fable of creation recorded in Genesis?

Why are proponents of evolution so reticent to allow other views of the origin of life to be presented in the classroom, in spite of the fact that an Associated Press NBC poll revealed that 86% of Americans support equal treatment of creation and evolution in public schools?

If the majority of Americans believe in the Biblical account of creation, why are evolutionists so adamant that this alternative explanation for life’s origin never be mentioned in the classroom?

As we will discover, evolution is more than a scientific theory; it is an alternative religious philosophy regarding the origin and development of life.  

Despite a mountain of evidence against it, evolution’s proponents are in the unenviable position of defending its absurd claims. Why? The alternative is to acknowledge the role of an outside Creator, and such an admission is unthinkable to the evolutionist.

Before we look at the compelling evidence against evolution, we need to understand what evolution is really all about.

Evolution is a myth—it is fiction, not fact, and here’s why.

1. Understanding Evolution

To keep from falling into the stereotype of the ignorant religious fanatic, it is important that we clearly understand what the evolutionist claims about the origin of life. This introduction to PBS’s award-winning television broadcast “The Miracle of Life” summarizes what the evolutionist believes about the beginning of life:

“Four and a half billion years ago, the young planet Earth was a mass of cosmic dust of particles. It was almost completely engulfed by the shallow of primordial seas. Powerful winds gathered random molecules from the atmosphere. Some were deposited in the seas. Tides and currents swept the molecules together. And somewhere in this ancient ocean the miracle of life began . . . The first organized form of primitive life was a tiny protozoan. Millions of protozoa populated the ancient seas. These early organisms were completely self-sufficient in their sea-water world. They moved about their aquatic environment feeding on bacteria and other organisms . . . From these one-celled organisms evolved all life on earth”  (PBS “The Miracle of Life”).

• Evolution Seeks to Explain the Process, Not the Timetable for the Origin of Life

How old is the Earth? I don’t have any idea. However, rejecting evolution does not require embracing the young-earth theory (the belief that the earth is only thousands of years old) because evolution answers the question “How did life begin?” rather than “When did life begin?”

For example, Webster’s Dictionary defines “evolution” as “A theory that various types of animals and plants have their origin in other pre-existing types and that distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.”

In other words, all life can be traced back to a one-celled living being (protozoan) from which every other life form has developed.

Thus, the zebra, bird, reptile, chimpanzee, and human all originated from these unicellular animals and are the result of slight variations (mutations) that occurred over billions of years.

• Evolution Requires Major Changes Between Species, Not Minor Variations Within Species

The evolutionist is skilled at baiting people to accept evolution by pointing to these minor changes that occur over time within species. For example, he will look at the differences in human beings and conclude, “The fact that human beings in America are larger today than they were 100 years ago because of better nutrition, proves the evolutionary hypothesis.”

Using these minor variations within species, the evolutionist theorizes that if such variations were compounded over thousands and millions of years, they would produce major variations such as reptiles evolving into birds and apes evolving into human beings.

But there is a huge difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. For example, I drive a 10-year-old Lexus SUV. Over the last decade, there have been some improvements in the engine, transmission, etc. My car has evolved.  

However, such “evolution” in the car did not happen by accident. It would not matter how long you left a 10-year-old Volvo in my garage; it would never develop a more efficient engine or a better shock system without the aid of an intelligent engineer. And even with the intervention of an engineer, the end result is still an automobile. That is micro-evolution.

However, if you left that Lexus in the garage for 10 million years, is there any chance that it would ever evolve into a fully functioning 787 jetliner? Even with the intervention of an intelligent engineer, such a transformation would be impossible because there is a vast difference between a car and an airplane.

That kind of ” macro-evolution” is just as improbable as the evolution of a reptile mutating into a bird or an ape morphing into a human being.

• Evolution is a Religious Philosophy Claiming Creation is the Result of Random Chance, Not of a Divine Designer

The naturalist believes that “nature is all that there is.” For the naturalist, any answer concerning the origin of life must be based on what he can measure (yet as we will see, evolution falls woefully short of this self-imposed restriction).

As Philip Johnson notes, the problem with scientific naturalism is that it transforms “the limitations of science into limitations on reality.”

The naturalist says that anything he cannot see or measure must not be real (I wonder how the naturalist could persuade his mate that he loved her, since ” love” can neither be seen nor measured). Therefore, any theory of the origin of life must exclude the possibility of a Divine Creator, since such a Creator cannot (yet) be seen.

Now this is crucial to understand. The way the naturalist seeks to exclude the possibility of a Divine Creator from the classroom is by labeling his belief in naturalism as “science” and belief in a Divine Creator as “religious faith.”

“Science” is objective and verifiable while “religious faith” is subjective and unverifiable. Therefore, the “science” of naturalism should be taught in the public schools to everyone, while the “religious faith” in a Divine Creator should be relegated to the church or synagogue for the unenlightened who choose to embrace such a myth.

To acknowledge what science really reveals about the origin of life would point to an alternate explanation that is totally unacceptable to the naturalist.