Is Evolution a Viable Theory?

“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” So said Richard Dawkins back in 1986 in reference to Charles Darwin, the originator of the theory of evolution in 1859. I learned about evolution when I was a teen, and although I wasn’t an atheist, I wasn’t a Christian yet, either. One thing I recall is that evolution was presented as fact, not theory. If anything, that tendency is even stronger today, especially in textbooks. However, a theory is just that: a theory. (In this post, when I use the word “evolution,” I am referring to macroevolution, which is the hypothesized change from one species into another. It’s clear that microevolution, or changes within species over time, is a fact.)

After studying the evidence for evolution and thinking about it for many years, I have concluded that at best, it is a very weak theory. Here are five problems with it:

  • Irreducible complexity
  • The lack of transitional forms
  • The lack of “dead ends” in the fossil record
  • The fact that most mutations are not advantageous
  • The problem of reproduction

The first problem with evolution is what scientists call irreducible complexity. Everything we see is remarkably complex, even at the microscopic level.  Some organs and structures are so complex that invoking Darwin’s theory of natural selection and gradual change to explain them is almost laughable.  Two of the best-known examples are the eye and the wing.  If even one small part is removed, the whole becomes nonfunctional. In Darwin’s own words: “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.”

The second problem with evolution is the lack of transitional forms, or “missing links.” To illustrate, it is taught, and popularly believed, that apes evolved into humans. Stephen Gould, a now deceased professor of paleontology (and not a Christian), wrote “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” Here’s a quote from Philip Johnson, who was a Christian: “That 130 years of very determined efforts to confirm Darwinism have done no better than to find a few ambiguous supporting examples is significant negative evidence.” Even Richard Dawkins, our most well-known proponent of evolution, wrote, “It is as though they [numerous species that appeared 600 million years ago] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.” Dawkins also wrote, “We don’t need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact.” Really? Then what do we need? Nothing?

Let’s move on to the third problem with evolution: the lack of “dead ends” in the fossil record. What this means is that, according to Charles Darwin, there should be numerous examples of “failed” species in the fossil record. The best-known example of this is Neanderthal man, but we really don’t have enough evidence to know what he was. The fossil record shows us examples of fully formed “successful” species again and again. I have no doubt how Richard Dawkins would respond to this problem with evolution, based on his comment about not needing fossils to prove it.

The fourth problem with evolution is related to mutations. You don’t need to be a scientist to understand that “mutation” almost always connotes a negative change. However, evolution relies remarkably heavily on positive mutations to produce change.

Finally, and this is something I haven’t read but have thought about extensively: there is the problem of reproduction. What I mean is: Species cannot perpetuate themselves without reproduction, and a given member of a species can successfully reproduce only with another member of the same species. I say “successfully” because reproduction between different species produces sterile offspring. For example, maybe you know that when a horse and donkey reproduce, they make a sterile mule. Now let’s imagine two interspecies organisms (transitional forms); how likely would it be for both of them to have mutated in exactly the same way?  It is all but mathematically impossible, but this is the only way in which successful reproduction between them could take place.   Evolution is dependent on this happening over and over again. Furthermore, in an evolutionary sense, how can it be advantageous to lose the ability to reproduce with one’s own (former) kind?

To summarize, the theory of evolution faces five problems: irreducible complexity; the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record; the lack of “dead ends” in the fossil record; the fact that most mutations are not advantageous; and the problem of reproduction. I would guess that some reading this will think that I’m writing against evolution because I’m a Christian. Actually, I have examined the theory on its own merits and found it wanting. Also, when Richard Dawkins, our foremost proponent of the theory, writes that we don’t need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact… well, to put it mildly, it doesn’t help his case for his so-called “fact,” which has at best become a very questionable theory to more and more scientists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: