Yesterday, we looked at Darwin’s theory of evolution. We also saw that the fossil record was and is a problem for his theory as the Cambrian Period witnessed an explosion of complex forms including 35 of the world’s 40 phyla without any evidence of the gradual mutations that is central to Darwin’s theory. You will still hear some Darwinists object that the pre-Cambrian “transitional” fossils must have been too soft-bodied to have been preserved but in the past 20 years, pre-Cambrian sponges and other soft tissue fossils such as embryos have been found especially in parts of China.
Many paleontologists have abandoned any hope of finding transitional fossils of any kind. They feel they have looked long enough and hard enough and they just aren’t there. The overwhelming majority of Phyla or major body plans just show up in the Cambrian explosion. Instead of the Darwin tree of life rising from a common ancestor you get a lawn with millions of blades of grass, each a separate species. There is overwhelming evidence of diversification within species but nothing leading from one species to a new species.
As I write this, there is absolutely NO evidence of the gradual changes Darwin predicted would be there. To quote arch Darwinist Richard Dawkins, “Without gradualness…we are back to miracle.”
But Darwinists do not just have a fossil problem but a molecular one as well. How do naturalists explain the origin of life? Some have speculated there was a “prebiotic soup” of amino acids that eventually came together to form a life. But Biologist Doug Axe estimates that the odds of nature randomly producing a protein fold capable of producing a new species to be one in ten to the seventy-fourth power or one chance in a hundred trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion…and that’s just one protein fold and you need several hundred to produce a single complex cell.
Studies such as these led Darwinist Francis Crick, who helped discover the double helix form of DNA, to state ”An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” Crick’s commitment to naturalism, however, also led him to theorize that space aliens sent a super bacteria to earth to begin life.
And they make fun of Christians?!?
There is another problem for Darwinists–evidence of such an amino acid rich “pre-biotic soup” has never been found. If such a “soup” existed, we should find large deposits of nitrogen but they aren’t there.
But the problems don’t end there and to that we will turn tomorrow.
Until then, grace and peace.
I think the issue is more centrally philosophical, which is why Darwinists act like the stereotypical dogmatic religious person when their theory is critiqued. Not all Darwinists are committed naturalists, but it’s a good bet most are, and they would rather stab their own eyes than let it drop in status because that would have enormous worldview ramifications.
I remember reading about a debate at UT between one of our philosophy professors (a Christian) and a biology prof. The philosophy professor merely pointed out that Darwinian evolution fails to satisfy certain standards of natural science, so there is no reason to hold it to such a high degree of confidence, and the biology prof answered with silly non sequiturs like, “Oh, to say that we don’t have a good understanding of genetics is fallacious,” which failed to address the point but probably made his colleagues high five each other. I am convinced most people in the natural sciences know nothing about philosophy (and their own philosophical assumptions) and certainly have no clue how to argue, as Richard Dawkins repeatedly shows.
It’s amazing that there seems to be so many holes in theory yet it is still upheld. The New Atheist Movement (Dawkins, Hutchins, etc.) is doing an amazing job at presenting The Bible, God, and Christians in such a negative way. One point they use against the bible (saying its the oldest game of telephone) is that there is not a manuscript that has been found in the first century. Even though we have found 10.000+ manuscripts (from 2nd-16th centuries) with the same identical scriptures. Not to mention all the scriptures commented on by Eusebius, Ignatius, Polycarp, and other apostolic fathers. It is estimated that the bible could be rewritten in exact form just on their writings about scripture.
Today Christians are more susceptible to giving into the Darwin Theory posing as a possible way that God created us. It is thought that the “vagueness” of Genesis 3 leaves room for this to happen.
Christians as a whole, maybe more/less in some denominations (I could be wrong), are having problems with the reliability of scriptures in connection with post modern thinking and modern day Science. It seems that Christians do not know enough about our faith. Maybe it is simpy because there just isn’t enough information put out. In school it is easier to type a paper on pro-evolution vs pro-creation. The databases are filled with “intellectual” papers that side on evolution.
One of the thoughts that was posed by a professor is if a man/scientist were on the verge of accepting Jesus and he asks you “do I have to accept the belief creationist have that the earth is 5k years old or that God made us in any way other than evolution?” Would you tell him he is wrong before you lead him to Christ?
It is interesting thing to note. Other than that I am still undecided on whether evolution was a possibility or not (I say undecided but I am mostly pro creation). Lee strobel makes an excellent case in his book. He has changed my view point intirely.
If your not to warn out from reading those to books (and I indeed feel like Apologetics is something that wears me out). I recommend to you Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli). The book is phenomenal in tackling questions about scripture, historical jesus, and even the problem of evil (the one argument that can “prove” God is not real).
Can’t wait to read the next post.