The Four Fatal Flaws of Evolution

Last time, we began looking at why we can say that evolution is fact, not fiction. Three truths:  

• Explains process, not timetable. How, not when. 
• Evolution is about major changes, not minor changes within. 
• Evolution is a religious philosophy, not just a scientific theory.

1. The Problem of the Protein Molecule

Darwin theorized that all life forms are the result of slow changes (mutations) that have occurred over billions of years, beginning with one single-celled organism. A natural question would be, “How did this single-celled creature come into existence?” 

The evolutionist will gloss over the question as quickly as possible because he has no answer for this greatest mystery at all. He will postulate that when chemicals that covered the earth, such as ammonia, methane, and hydrogen, were energized by lightning, amino acids (the building blocks of life) were produced. Those amino acids randomly assembled to produce protein molecules that eventually resulted in the first one-celled creature.

But even if we accept the idea that amino acids emerged from this prebiotic broth (a theory that is highly questionable), what are the chances of the correct amino acids assembling together to produce a single protein molecule? 

Biochemist Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box, Dr. James Coppedge (an expert on statistical probability), and others estimate that the probability of the correct 20 amino acids assembling together to produce one protein molecule would be 1 in 10. That would be a “one” followed by 160 zeroes. Such a number defies imagination, but let me attempt to illustrate the remote probability such a number represents in two ways.

Dr. Coppedge offers another way to illustrate how much time it would take for amino acids to randomly assemble into a protein molecule. Envision an amoeba (a tiny, one-celled animal) that decides to move the entire universe (every galaxy, solar system, planet, human, animal, and object contained in that universe) over the width of the entire universe. Because the amoeba is so small, it can only move objects atom-by-atom.  

So the amoeba starts with you and removes one angstrom (the width of the hydrogen atom) of your body and moves that atom to the other end of the universe. Since the universe is 30 billion light-years in diameter, the amoeba must travel that distance (a light year is the distance light travels in a year at 186,282 miles per second), carrying your one atom, deposit it on the other end of the universe, and then travel back the same distance and move the second atom.

Think about how long it would take for that amoeba just to transfer one person from one end of the universe to the other. But it must carry every human being, animal, plant, and object not only from this planet, but from every planet in creation, from one end of the universe to the other. According to Dr. Coppedge, the time it would take to accomplish such a feat would not even come close to the amount of time it would take to create just one protein molecule.

But even if that molecule were assembled by chance, you would then need a second molecule, and a third one. Obviously, the chance of such molecules forming randomly are zero. Yet, the evolutionist prefers to place his faith in those kind of odds rather than risk believing in a Divine Creator.

2. The Problem of the Black Box

To create life, however, you need more than one or two protein molecules “hooking up.” A living cell would require bringing together thousands of protein molecules to perform the necessary functions for supporting life. What are the chances of all those molecules randomly assembling together to form a single functioning cell? 

But after more than 150 years, and with the aid of powerful instruments, biologists have been able to peer into the cell’s “black box” and view its enormous complexity. What they have discovered is that the molecular machinery and complicated systems the cell requires to function are far too complex to have evolved over a long period of time.

Instead, according to Michael Behe in his landmark book Darwin’s Black Box, the cell requires numerous systems to support life: (1) a functioning membrane, (2) a system to build the DNA units, (3) a system to control the copying of DNA, (4) a system for energy processing—just to name a few.

Now here’s the key: all of these systems have to be present at once instead of being built gradually over a long period of time. To illustrate that requirement, Behe uses the example of a mousetrap. A mousetrap requires five parts to catch mice—and all five must be fully functional from the beginning. Behe explains, “You need all the parts to catch a mouse. You can’t catch a few mice with a platform, then add the spring and catch a few more, and then add the hammer and improve its function. All the parts must be there to have any function at all. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex.”

In the same way, the cell requires that the aforementioned systems be in place all at once in order to function. Now remember what Darwin said about the Achilles heel of his theory. “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.”

Why did Darwin offer such a concession? He understood that the chances of a complex organism requiring numerous systems coming together at one time were about as great as putting all the pieces of a mousetrap in a washing machine and waiting for it to assemble itself from the agitation. No matter how long you waited, it would never happen.

3. The Problem of Design

A famous parable describes a man walking through a field and discovering a stone. He walks a little further and stumbles upon an ornate, gold watch. The man may reasonably conclude that the stone has been there for a long time and is simply the result of a sliver of mineral being chipped away from the earth by chance. But the beauty, design, symmetry, and purpose represented in the gold watch could not have happened by chance. The watch must be the work of an intelligent and purposeful creator. 

Similarly, creation is filled with mechanisms much more intricately designed than a watch, which argues strongly for an intelligent and purposeful Creator, like a DNA Molecule and the human eye, for example.

4. The Problem of the Fossil Record

Remember, evolution is not only about slight modifications within a species over a long period of time. Instead, the evolutionist is claiming that those tiny changes added up to huge changes between species, such as between reptiles and birds or mammals and human beings. But if such macro changes actually occurred, why is there no fossil record of single-celled organisms changing step-by-step into more complex plants and animals?

A little background is helpful here. Many evolutionists believe that the Earth is approximately. 4.5 billion years old. For the first 700 million years of its existence, the Earth was the victim of a continuous bombardment by meteorites. Within one hundred million years of the cessation of the meteorite showers, the evolutionist theorizes that the first life form appeared out of the primordial broth of chemicals that covered the earth. As we have seen, the evolutionist has no explanation for how this simple, yet amazingly complex, single-celled life form emerged—but that’s another story.

For the next 3 billion years, the Earth was populated with these single-celled creatures. But suddenly, during the Cambrian geological period (500-700 million years ago) all the known phyla (the next largest sub-category) of the Animal Kingdom appear, with the exception of one. Furthermore, all of these different animals appear in the fossil record without any ancestors or intermediates. Instead, they evidently occurred over a time period of “only” 510 million years.

To us, that seems like eternity, but to the evolutionist, it is only a blink of an eye. Why? Evolution is based on the premise of slight changes over a long period of time. If an organism were to change too rapidly it would not fit its environment and would die. Even the late ardent evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University was surprised by the rapidity of development evidenced in the Cambrian period, admitting, “Fast is now a lot faster than we thought, and that is extraordinarily interesting.” 

Think about this. If the fossil record demonstrates that all the major animal groups suddenly appeared with no ancestors and intermediates and, furthermore, there have been no drastic changes since that time, what is the fossil record really saying to us?

Any discussion of the origin of life begins with a presupposition about God and His role in creation. For the evolutionist to assume that there is no Divine Creator is just as much a religious philosophy as assuming that there is. The real question is this: “To which assumption do the footprints of this complex universe lead us?”