Written by Ronald J. Gordon ~ Published January, 1998 ~ Last Updated, January, 2012 ©
This document may be reproduced for non-profit or educational purposes only, with the
provisions that the entire document remain intact and full acknowledgement be given to the author.

Few words have created more discomfort for Christians than the word evolution. It has become a reproach to many, for it's basic conclusions would appear to invalidate the fundamental trustworthiness of the biblical record, and hence their own faith. Others simply attempt to compromise evolution with the Genesis account when presented with this formidable adversary. Christian leaders have recently cited Evolution as one of the main contributing factors to young adults leaving the church. Their reasoning being that if the Genesis record is not reliable then how can they trust the rest of the Bible.

The word evolution came into prominence during the middle of the 19th Century when Charles Darwin issued his controversial work entitled “The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection” {  A  } in 1859. He was not the first to suggest an evolutionary approach to resolving the mystery of the beginning of life, but his monumental publication gained a wider acceptance than other researchers. Darwin was not a scientist. His knowledge of genetics was minimal. Gregor Mendel was the great pioneer of that field. Darwin is more correctly titled a naturalist. He sailed around the world, making observations about plant and animal life in the various regions which he visited. His conclusions drew him to propose an evolutionary hypothesis which directly challenged the stability of both scientific and religious thought, namely that all life evolved from a common ancestral form, instead of the contemporary biblical view that all life forms were the result of a momentary creation. Over the years, evolution widened as a belief system, acquiring many different faces according to the various scientific disciplines which applied it. For this exercise, the word evolution requires a more specific explanation in order to express our singular intent, because many people have varying degrees of understanding regarding what evolution IS and what evolution is NOT. We also need to set forth an underlying principle of what we Intend to accomplish in this exercise, and at the cost of redundancy, what we do Not Intend to accomplish. The above title adequately captures our intention: to review the basic tenets of the hypothesis of evolution, and see if there are valid proofs that will successfully refute the biblical record. Conversely, it is not our intention to unnecessarily extend the length of this work by attempting to prove the complete biblical account of Genesis, nor do we wish to address every facet of the entire hypothesis of evolution, for there is a profound difference between appearance and reality. Many of the suppositions and analogies of Darwinism clearly appear to be in opposition to the record of Genesis. Our energy is primarily concerned with examining whether these proofs can successfully prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the biblical account of Genesis is invalid.

WHICH EVOLUTION?

There are two different kinds of evolution: Macro suggesting “external changes” whereby all living systems have a common progenitor from which each system has developed because of transitional changes, and Micro specifying “internal change” within the same family or type. For example, Indian elephants have smaller and more pointed heads with smaller ears, whereas African elephants have broader heads with much larger ears. This is an example of a naturally occurring Micro event within the same family. Hybrid corn is another example of Micro evolution whereby different strains have been genetically combined, to produce a new variety of corn that will exhibit different attributes. Micro events occur through a genetic alteration which is observable. Conversely, Macro events have never been observed at any time by anyone, yet they are key to the validation of evolution. The multitudinous array of plant and animal kingdoms are composed of millions of different genera and species, with no indisputable evidence of distinct transitional forms between the major class structures. Without noticeable proofs of these intermediary links, Macro evolutionary reasoning must then educe their past existence, and hold that their problematic absence is a temporary discomfort, an impasse that will hopefully be resolved upon their eventual discovery. Darwin bemoaned this absence, citing it as the greatest challenge to his hypothesis: “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?” Origins, VI, p. 171. And similarly expressed again in a later chapter. “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” Origins, IX, p. 280.

For this study, we focus our attention toward Macro evolution which suggests that “all living systems have developed from a common progenitor through transitional or intermediary changes.” As previously stated, we believe that Macro events have never been observed in any form, to any degree, at any time, by anyone. We do stipulate that all living material contains similar DNA or RNA molecules, that only twenty known types of amino acids are found in the protein of all known species, and that immunological reactions in many animals are quite similar. But our fundamental argument persists that molecular similarity between organisms, genetic changes within a class, or biologically similar reactions do not prove that one type of organism has evolved into an entirely new living self-sustaining, pro-creative system. The key to Macro evolution are transitional forms or what the generic student calls “missing links.”

The biblical account of creation is contained in the first two chapters of Genesis, and more specifically for this exercise, we are concerned with the passage of Genesis 1:11-25, where the words “after his kind” are repeated no less than eight times. Here we find the creationist model wherein all life forms were created at one specific time, and given the biochemical means to reproduce according to their own genetically defined type. This manner of creation does not need intermediary forms, because there would not have been a need for transition. This is our fundamental argument with Macro evolution which requires huge transitional leaps from one class or family to another. We will argue that the biblical principle of kind producing after its own kind is not only persuasive, but still to this day the only process observable, continuously resisting the efforts of time and human initiative to alter it. We further observe that this biblical principle is challenged only with the absolute ingenuity of human desire to circumvent what occurs naturally. Geneticists frequently observe Micro changes within an organism, such as the transformation of a new gene trait from parent to offspring. However, these transformations have never been observed to mutate or jump into an entirely new living, self-sustaining, pro-creative system. Darwin's finches are still finches, mutated fruit-flies after thousands of generations are still fruit-flies. In those very few times when mutation has been successful, the offspring is not a self-sustaining, pro-creative organism. Mules are the mutant offspring between a female horse and male donkey, but as with other mutants they are sterile - genetic dead-ends. Whereas a mutation is supposed to be evolution's answer to the rise of entirely new pro-creative systems, upon actual observation they have tended to be one of the more successful arguments against evolution, because these specimens are routinely sterile, often weak, no friend of the competition in natural selection, and occasionally dysfunctional.

CLASSIFICATION

	Tiger Swallowtail Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Arthropoda Class: Mammalia Family: Lepidoptera Genus: Papilio Species: Glaucus

Even the most superficial observation of plants and animals reveals that life forms can be easily grouped together in categories, such as but not limited to dogs, cats, birds, snakes, and insects. An even closer observation reveals that there are many different kinds in each category; for example, large cats and small cats, domestic cats and wild cats, spotted cats and stripped cats. Additionally, there are relationships and uniquenesses within the many different kinds. Taxonomy is the science dealing with the classification of all living things, and most often the student is introduced to the Linnaean hierarchical system or the PhyloCode. It deals with terms and relationships such as kingdom, phylum, class, family, genus, and species. For purposes of comparison, each level is classified with a descriptive word (often Latin), so that all living organisms may be referenced individually, to the exclusion of all other forms. The common name for the yellow butterfly in the photo is Tiger Swallowtail, but this is typically a North American label. In order to share findings about this same butterfly to a foreign researcher in another language and culture, to the exclusion of other life forms, a person must use the family, genus, and species names. By this universal method of classification, the possibility of mistaken identity should be alleviated, except in the most extenuating situations. To insure consistency, something needs to regulate this system of nomenclature so that it will always remain consistent and universal, and this oversight is administered by the British International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

After all the classifying and regulating has been done, something is noticeable missing, at least for the evolutionist. Just at the very moment when nearly every known living organism on the planet has been given a name, the absence of "transitional forms" is all too apparent. There is no clear explanation from any classification table to answer the evolutionary hypothesis of common ancestry. Cats are still cats and whales are still whales, as far back in time as it has been possible to unearth their fossilized remains. Although many species bare strikingly similar attributes to others of the same class or family, there are no animals that exhibit a gradual change between any two. No one can produce a half-dog half-cat variety. Even with the most elaborate charts and taxonomic gymnastics, the preponderant fact still remains that all living forms contain a strong element of distinction. Nearly seventy-five percent of all living animals are insects, and they are more distinct from each other than any other class. How then is it possible for evolutionists to propose a solution of Macro evolution without clear incontrovertible evidence? On those few occasions when transitional forms have been declared, the assertion is based on similarities and conjecture, not incontrovertible evidence.

MUTATIONS AND ACQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS

Evolutionists propose an answer for materialization from common ancestry through the agency of either character acquisition or mutation. Character acquisition is the oldest of these two which postulates that a distinctive species may acquire new characteristics from generation to generation. At the turn of the Nineteenth century the French scientist, J.P. Lamarck proposed that ducks once had feet much like chickens, but then for some unknown reason decided that they wanted to swim. As they tried to swim with great awkwardness, their desire for larger webs on their feet produced a stretching which was then acquired in the next generation. Over a period of many generations with each successive offspring possessing larger webs, the toes of the ducks eventually became filled with a web between each tip. In other words, wishful thinking causes a real physical change to take place. August Weismann later doubted Lamarcks explanation for he believed that genes control the development of these characteristics, because the act of simply wishing does not easily lend itself to describing the process of transference. Weismann tested the theory by cutting off the tails of day old mice, and then observing the tail length of the next generations to see if there was a measurable difference. No matter how many succeeding generations of mice experienced the forced acquisition of this new character trait, each new-born mouse still had a tail about the same length. {  B  } In other words, gene information controls the traits that will be inherited by succeeding generations.

In the early 1800's, the French endeavored to increase the percentage of sugar in sugar beets through a process of isolating those beets with the highest percentage of sugar and using their seeds for the next generation. Year after year large numbers of beets were tested and only the sweetest were used for the next generation. By 1878, the average percent of sugar had, indeed, risen from about six to nearly seventeen percent, naturally convincing researchers that they were finally able to force succeeding generations to acquire new characteristics. Unfortunately, the percentage of sugar in sugar beets has not changed significantly since then because gene information is not affected by character acquisition. {  C  } What this project really demonstrated was that selection (natural or unnatural) only shifts the array of gene frequencies. In other words, genes that favored high sugar yield were retained as unwanted genes were eliminated, but the amount of yield is proportional to the number of genes retained. Once that number had been reached, the genetic brakes snapped on and the percentage of yield could increase no farther. Character acquisition does not appear to be the answer to Macro evolution for when this process is put to the acid test it fails predictably. But yet, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, evolutionists continue to plead character acquisition to suggest that a thin skinned, light haired animal from the tropics would actually develop thicker skin and longer hair (over many generations) if moved to the Arctic; that teeth of carnivores (over many generations) would actually grow longer from the necessity of having to kill larger and larger prey; that gills of fish (over many generations) would begin to breathe air if removed from water. All these instances fail to demonstrate a process of character transference from one generation to another, because it is the gene that holds the controlling factors.

In another attempt to encourage character acquisition, researchers tried to change the number of bristles on the thorax of fruit-flies by isolation. After the flies were temporarily put to sleep, a lab technician would count the number of bristles and place those with the fewest number in a large jar, where they could only breed among themselves. This was repeated after each generation and the number of bristles continued to diminish until about the nineteenth generation when the number remained a constant, no matter how often the experiment was repeated. The genetic brakes snapped on again. In most breeds of cattle, the production of butterfat can be increased, but only until its genetic limit. For example, it is not very difficult to raise the average butterfat production in a herd of 100 cows from 200 to 300 pounds a year, with the farmer culling the herd of poor producers and breeding among the highest producers. To increase this same herd from 400 to 500 pounds of butterfat per year not only becomes more difficult, it requires diligence with a little bit of luck in breeding. But to increase beyond 500 pounds of butterfat per year is almost impossible. Once again, the genetic brakes snap on as one shifts the array of gene frequencies. This lack of change is frustrating to the Evolutionist, however, it is exactly what the Creationist would expect!

Mutation is another facility through which evolutionists propose the transition and proliferation of life. One of the main differences between acquisition and mutation is that we can generally predict the former but rarely the latter. For example, if a plant is placed in the dark it will lose its green color and predictably acquire a different color trait (acquisition). If the same plant is set under ultra-violet light, many of the seeds will be defective (mutation) but no one can reliably predict what will happen to the seeds or the quality of their maturity should they even grow when planted. Mutation has become a holy grail for evolutionists because of the dissatisfying results of character acquisition. Fruit flies have received more doses of radiation than perhaps any other species on the planet. For many years, researchers engaged in a wide variety of radioactive bombardments on these little animals, many experiments of which were to create a distinctively new species through gene mutilation. Unfortunately for both researcher and fruit flies, all that was produced was mutilated fruit flies. No distinctively new, self-sustaining, pro-creative life form was engineered. Additionally, further research has shown that mutants are generally sterile, weak, and rarely able to compete in the process of survival of the fittest. Natural selection usually overlooks, eschews, or destroys these misfits. Even among humans, people tragically shun others with mutant qualities - ask children with freckles. Mules are the mutant offspring between a female horse and male donkey. Mules are unable to produce offspring of their own, except in the most extreme and rare conditions. All male mules and most female mules are sterile. A very small number of female mules have produced young, but only after they were bred to male asses or male horses. These mutants are genetic dead ends but usually referred to as hybrid animals, possibly because this word does not carry the baggage of evolutionary dysfunctionality.

In all fairness, some mutant or hybrids are beneficial, depending on your interpretation of beneficial. A navel orange is a hybrid fruit resulting from a mutation which creates a depression at the blossom end, that also inhibits the formation of seeds. It is beneficial for the consumer, in that discomfort from seeds is eliminated, but a disaster to itself because it cannot reproduce. Navel oranges survive only because workers graft their twigs into another non-mutant variety of orange tree.

In the last century when genetic information was poorly understood, evolutionists used character acquisition to bolster their proofs in spite of demonstrable evidence to the contrary, i.e. natural selection and wishful thinking does not transfer to the next generation what only the gene can accomplish. In this century with a veritable explosion in genetic understanding, evolutionists use mutation to bolster their proofs in spite of demonstrable evidence to the contrary, i.e, no matter how often you mutate a species, you fail to achieve a superior, physically stronger pro-creative species. Mutants are sterile derelicts, genetic dead ends that fail to provide convincing proof that single celled life forms evolved into complex plants and animals. Fruit-flies bombarded with radiation will still be fruit-flies. Since the basic evolutionary premise of natural selection maintains that the fittest will, not only survive, but continue these gene traits into their future generations, how then may weak sterile mutants overpower their stronger, more healthier and attractive competitors for breeding rights? These suppositions usually seem contrary to what is actually observed in the field.

THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN

Still another tool of developmental investigation is the Geologic Column. Anyone who has visited the Grand Canyon witnessed strata in beautiful color. In geology, strata are layers of sedimentary soil that hardened into rock. Each stratum or layer contains internal characteristics that distinguish it from surrounding layers. If one could extract a giant vertical cylinder of earth, beginning at the surface and protruding deep within the crust, one would observe the Geologic Column. Since this is usually not feasible to great depths, one needs to locate the side of a hill or deep canyon where erosion or violent movement has exposed the same various layers or strata. The concept of a Geologic Column is attributed to Charles Lyle in about 1830, but over the years, many scientists have vastly improved his work and given new classifications. The major strata are called Proterozoic (before life), Paleozoic (ancient life), Mesozoic (intermediate life) and Cenozoic (recent life). These can be further broken down into Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary. Some geologists divide the Carboniferous into the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian. Each name reveals the prevailing evolutionary concept that layers were formed largely due to sedimentation over millions of years with the lowest strata being the earliest.

But the distribution of these layers is chaotic. Not all layers appear in their proper sequence in all areas of the earth and many not at all. In a textbook the Geologic Column can be displayed with wonderful colors, but it serves only to give reference points for the purpose of education. If all classified layers were placed on top of each other, the resultant column would be over 140 miles high. In actuality at any given place on the earth, the Geologic Column is never more than several thousand feet, and in some areas the very lowest and presumably earliest strata are fully exposed to the surface. Each layer name represents a different period of time, and each contains fossilized remains of animals that lived during that era. In other words, each level represents a historical record of that age. There is wide disagreement over how the universal sequence of the strata should be presented, because the strata appears in very different sequences all over the world. Some argue that no two places on the earth have the same Column, whereas others contend that like sequences have been found in at least two or more places. Others even doubt that the chaotic nature of the strata yields enough information to be relied upon at all. Correlation is the name given to this process of comparing strata in different places and then drawing conclusions based on their findings. A photo journalists has stated that without film or video tape, history often becomes an illusion. Explaining geology is very similar. We connect the dots through various witnesses and reliable standards to try and understand what most probably occurred. In this manner, researchers of various scientific pursuits have carefully studied these exposed layers and tried to connect the dots, by establishing the fossil contents of one strata with that of many other strata. When enough information has been gathered from enough locations, one may then draw reasonable conclusions as to what may have happened during the process of the earth's development.

Over the past two centuries of debate, the Geologic Column has become a weapon of persuasion for both the Evolutionist and the Creationist. How can the same thing benefit each side, you may ask? Because so much of the information is based on conclusions, analogies, or presumptions. One attribute of the Column that is most precious to the Creationist is that no transitional forms or missing links appear in the Column. At no place, in any observable strata, at any depth, has anyone, at any time, ever observed a preponderance of transitional life forms which are so necessary to the hypothesis of evolution. Transitional forms are the bedrock of evolution, for Darwin's ideas suppose that all life forms evolved from one common ancestral form through the processes of character acquisition, mutation, or natural selection. If this is valid, then it would be a reasonable expectation to find a multiplicity of these transitional forms, evenly distributed throughout the historical record of the geologic column. Their absence has driven Creationists to argue more persuasively for the biblical record which describes a momentary creation of all life as distinct whole organisms. If a preponderance of transitional life forms existed in the Geologic Column, it would lend favor to the hypothesis of Evolution, and demand greater explanation from Creationists. Another frequent peculiarity of the Geologic Column is the existence of large plants and animals that fully extend through several layers. {  D  } This lends favor to the creationist model that does not accept the notion of each layer being formed over millions of years, but rather due to a global cataclysm. Some equate this to a biblical event called Noah's flood and others do not. The chief argument being that a tree cannot remain alive for millions of years while new stratum rise around it. Evolutionists counter that layers must have folded quickly, even if no physical evidence of fault slippage is present. Additionally, fossils representing presumably different ages are often found encased in the very same layer, which is just what a Creationist would expect from a global catastrophe. Evolutionists will argue that mixing has occurred between these layers, because they naturally approach these situations with an evolutionary framework in mind. In other words, one proof for evolution will always be the assumption of evolution.

Jurassic is another layer classification that was used by film makers in the movie Jurassic Park. Amusingly though, the period of dinosaurs which were generally pictured in the movie lived in the Cretaceous Period rather than the Jurassic. Evidently the moguls in Hollywood did not understand the dinosaur period or more probably just disliked the movie title of Cretaceous Park.

DARWIN SPEAKS

Was the Geologic Column known to Charles Darwin and did he make any statements concerning it? The answer is yes to both questions. It bothered him greatly that his necessary transitional forms were missing from the known classified strata. In fact, it bothered him greatly to the extent that he stated this absence was the greatest challenge to his new opinion. “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?” Origins, VI, p. 171. Darwin was very honest about the shortcomings and inconsistencies of his theory. He did not recede from trying to explain obvious contradictions, and in a few cases, simply left questions unanswered for later examiners. Occasionally he would return to a course of blaming geology for not providing him with much anticipated evidence. Naturally, it would seem obvious to the Bible student that the ground cannot yield what it never possessed. “In very many cases, however, one form is ranked as a variety of another, not because the intermediate links have actually been found, but because analogy leads the observer to suppose either that they do now somewhere exist, or may formerly have existed; and here a wide door for the entry of doubt and conjecture is opened.” Origins, II, p. 47.

Analogy accompanied by supposition creates a very wide door, indeed, and far too many researchers have used these methods for detrimental means. Darwin's honesty at this point, and several others, is to be acknowledged and applauded. He is not proposing a new way of evaluating history without also divulging his sincere concern for its weaknesses and shortcomings. There are not many people who exhibit these qualities of maturity, respect or reverence for the pursuit of any field. Today's landscape of debate is too often littered with the mortally wounded. Fiery exchanges of verbal torment rage across the Internet. Grant Fraud is slowly becoming a matter of routine for some researchers whose need for financial stability has exceeded their need for integrity. If you cannot trust the scientist, then who can you trust? The US Department of Environmental Protection Agency offers this brochure: When Good Money Goes Bad. It is a great misfortune for everyone that modern science has unfortunately given shelter to the fraudulent. It is, therefore, with comfort that we explore Darwin's findings and conclusions, knowing that he belongs to a more respectable class of investigator.

While describing the process of comparison and ranking a given species, Darwin stipulates to the absence of intermediate or transitional links. He admits that the geologic column is not his closest friend, because natural observation of the strata do not yield the very forms which are so necessary to prove his hypothesis. The key terminology in this section are the words 'analogy' and 'suppose,' for they are much of the basis for his conclusions. Classification and correlation are determined more often by supposition than by observable criteria. In other words, even though evolutionists have not actually found transitional forms, they pretend that they existed because transitions are vital for their purpose. However, assumption is not improper in science, for it is always a tool that lends itself to the serious investigator. Many discoveries and inventions have been the result of imagination that was based on assumption. Our purpose in highlighting this passage is to sustain two points: (1) that Darwin was aware of the lack of transitional forms, and (2) that he depended to a great deal on analogy. “I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations.” Origins, IX, p. 310.

“The noble science of Geology loses glory from the extreme imperfection of the record. The crust of the earth with its embedded remains must not be looked at as a well-filled museum, but as a poor collection made at hazard and at rare intervals.” Origins, XIV, p. 487.

“Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines.” Origins, IX, p. 280.

Darwin refers to the lack of transitional forms in the geological record numerous times in his monumental composition, and it would not be advantageous to cite each one. Therefore we focus our attention on those several passages wherein a new concept is introduced. Darwin calls it imperfection. literally blames the ground for not recording what he thinks should have been there. We say this not in sarcasm but in amazement, for here is a learned individual who bemoans his predicament without considering that maybe his basic assumption is the reason for his disappointment. Researchers should be free to utilize the advantage of supposition in order to propel their investigation into new paths of discovery, but one must be careful that self-delusion does not accompany the process. Is it not entirely probable to suggest, that the reason why the ground will not yield Darwin's transitional forms is because it never possessed them?

Another innovation which Darwin introduces in this passage is what he terms the changing dialect of the geological record. There is truth in this for the earth is not one homogeneous process of uniform activity. Earthquakes occur in some regions but not in others. Asteroids strike in some places but not in others, and likewise other cataclysmic events such as volcano's and floods. We agree with his observation, but we disagree with his conclusion. If Macro evolution is genuine and the earth contains millions of different living plants and animals, then the number of transitional forms would have been enormous, and to a far greater degree than the earth may conceal under a paradigm of changing dialects. The geologic column should be littered with these relics, and their abundance should be the Macro evolutionists most persuasive argument, but their absence in the geologic column is a glaring indictment against the hypothesis.

“But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor a record of the mutations of life, the best preserved geological section presented, had not the difficulty of our not discovering innumerable transitional links between the species which appeared at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory.” Origins, IX, p. 302.

What can we add? Even when the absence of transitional forms has pressed his theory to the point of reconsideration, Darwin tenaciously holds to the theory and dismisses observation to the contrary. He calls the earth poor because it is not able to yield his transitional forms. At the cost of redundancy we say again, is it not reasonable to conclude that the geologic column is unable to produce what it never possessed?

“On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections which may be urged against my theory. Why, again, do whole groups of allied species appear, though certainly they often falsely appear, to have come in suddenly on the several geological stages? Why do we not find great piles of strata beneath the Silurian system, stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Silurian groups of fossils? For certainly on my theory such strata must somewhere have been deposited at these ancient and utterly unknown epochs in the world's history. I can answer these questions and grave objections only on the supposition that the geological record is far more imperfect than most geologists believe.” Origins, XIV, p. 464

“Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide than they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking down the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this not having been effected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which may be urged against my views.” Origins, IX, p. 299

TRANSITIONING

Suppose that you are given a piece of paper with only two objects as depicted in Figure 1: a blue diamond and a yellow circle with only empty space between them. If asked the question: "What message did the graphic artist intend to convey," it would be natural to conclude that someone drew each geometric shape with the intention of high-lighting their distinctiveness, especially since there is significant emptiness between them. Conversely, if you were given a piece of paper holding the image shown in Figure 2, a blue diamond on the left and a yell low circle on the right, with a series of transitional shapes in between, it would also be natural to conclude that the graphic artist intended to show the similarities or connectedness of both shapes by high-lighting the evolving nature of each intermediary object. Under examination, most people focus their eyes, to a greater degree, on the middle shapes instead of the diamond or the circle at either end.

Figure 1


Figure 2

Each of these figures may easily be compared with our two contending philosophies: Figure 1 representing a creation model and Figure 2 representing an evolutionary model. Now at this point it would be logical to ask: "Which figure most closely represents the geologic column?" Since Darwin, himself, intellectually bemoans the absence of transitional forms in the geologic record, we are philosophically admonished to nominate Figure 1 and creation as the most logical solution to the emergence and proliferation of life. Conversely, if the geologic witness revealed a multitude of transitionals, then it would be most logical to align with Figure 2. Here then are we presented with the unreasonableness of evolution, for it requires us to accept an undefined process without clear evidence, plus we are further admonished to eschew the very observable evidence that rests beneath us.

Additionally, we must learn to appreciate the shear numerical dimension of evolutionary transitions. In Figure 2 we have used twenty intermediary steps between the blue diamond and the yell low circle. If every form of plant and animal required twenty transitions between their closest progenitor, then the geologic record should contain twenty times the number of specimens that exist today. It cannot be over emphasized how staggering are the number of transitionals which we are pressed to embrace.

“Far more imperfect” must be the earth than Darwin had first believed. It is actually perplexing to read the numerous (sic) places where Darwin blames the ground for not yielding what he supposes must certainly have been there. In all candor, why is it so difficult to expect the ground to yield what it has never contained? “Countless ... countless” are the species that must have existed. Perhaps Darwin is making this point better than we, for it must be emphasized over and again, how enormous should be the number of transitional animals in the Geologic Column. But there are none. And the few fossils that have been argued by evolutionists as transitionals is based on pure speculation. The researcher is advised to reconsider at some point, that if plenary evidence from observation repeatedly demonstrates major objections to a hypothesis, perhaps the rider should dismount from a premise that can no longer bear the load. Few people actually realize to what great extent, that Darwin had questions over his own hypothesis, which he occasionally referred to as “grievously hypothetical.” {  E  }

Modern geologists, paleontologists, and even cosmologists do not use Darwinian terminology ( far more imperfect or extreme imperfection of the geological record or history of the world imperfectly kept ) to describe the present geological column. Rather, these learned men and women look to each strata as a reliable deposit of history. So firm is their passion for reliability, that we are presently encouraged to believe that the geologic column offers us the near exact date of the extinction of the dinosaurs. A cosmic theory growing in popularity suggests that an asteroid struck the earth near the Yucatán peninsula in Mexico about 65 million years ago, that destroyed larger forms of life while depositing its signature as a layer of ash over most of the earth. Humorously called the Blast from the Past, this layer of ash is offered as evidence of an exact record of an actual history event.

After Their Kind

If the geologic column is now a reliable witness of historical events, then why are modern researchers unable to produce these countless finely-graduated organic chains which Darwin insisted must have existed? We beg to suggest the most simple of various answers: the ground simply cannot produce ... what it never possessed! Instead, we observe the continuation of the biblical phrase after their kind, first expressed in the Genesis record beginning in chapter 1 verse 11, which stands just as true in the modern world as it did from the beginning of time. It is repeated no less than seven times: herbs yielding seed after their kind, fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, every living creature that moveth after their kind, and every winged bird after their kind, beasts of the earth after their kind, cattle after their kind, everything that creepeth upon the ground after their kind.

So, if there are no transitional forms in the geologic column which frustrated Darwin to no end, then why do Evolutionists continue to promote a theory without evidence? Because they have recently changed the playing field. Instead of gradual changes from generation to generation (termed Gradualism), they now propose that the changes occurred in large jumps. A hypothesis called Punctuated Equilibrium which proposes that change does not take place from generation to generation but is the result of huge geological events of speciation termed cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is assumed to be a process whereby a species splits into two entirely new species, instead of one species gradually transitioning into another. It is a convenient way of getting around Gradualism by suggesting that similarities are proof enough of a connected change.

The photo at right is the fossilized remains of Archaeopteryx, which exhibits qualities of both the dinosaur (bones) and birds (feathers). This animal has been hailed by Evolutionists as their holy grail. It has become their long lost explanation for the absence of gradual transitions in the geologic column. When Evolutionists refer to transitional forms, they now mean transitional “jumps and splits.” When the Creationist refers to transitioning, they have always maintained Gradualism. This causes no shortcomings of confusion, for both use the same term to mean two entirely different processes. Evolutionists look at Archaeopteryx and see an example of transition. Creationists look at this animal and see God having simply created a reptile with feathers. The movie Jurassic Park is a poor education in dinosaurs. First, these animals lived during the Cretaceous Period, not the Jurassic. Second, the villains of the movie were Velociraptors, depicted as large, eight foot tall, running lizards. In reality, Velociraptor was a mid-sized Dromaeosauri slightly larger than a turkey, with adults measuring up to about two feet tall at the hips and weighing about 35-40 pounds. Third, and the most disappointing of all, Velociraptor was covered from snout to tail end with Feathers. Incredible!

Not only did the producer of the movie get everything wrong about this ancient dinosaur, but he also missed a golden opportunity to champion the discovery of Archaeopteryx and its very importance to evolution, that dinosaurs transitioned (or jumped) into birds! The leading character, Professor Alan Grant, makes this assertion several times throughout the movie; especially on the plains where a herd of Gallimimus race toward them. He says: “Look at the wheeling - the uniform direction change! Like a flock of birds evading a predator!” Well then, why not depict Velociraptor as it actually existed? Present it as a big turkey, not higher than waist high to a human, and most important of all - cover it with feathers!

Just because an animal is odd looking or retains unusual traits does not prove a new kind of transition. The platypus is one such example. Is it a result of transitional jumping? A mix of duck, beaver, and otter? And how do you convincingly prove the case? Finding a singular fossil does not prove a theory. It merely reflects the traits of one animal at that particular time. The biblical law of kind only producing according to their own kind is not only found in the Bible, it is found in every part of the earth, both plant, animal, and human. It is something which the modern world strictly obeys. It is disingenuous to marginalize the Bible. It certainly is not science to dismiss the very law that rules the creation of life in every form. The scientist is unable to reproduce by any use of force the very theories which he imagines. Every new litter of kittens declares the biblical law of Kind as a hammer strikes the anvil. Kind will only produce after their own kind!

CONCLUSION

After reviewing the basic tenets whereby Macro evolution is suggested to have been the agent responsible for the creation and proliferation of innumerable varieties of life forms, we find that most of what is suggested more correctly rests on analogy, supposition, inference, and processes that cannot be demonstrated or reproduced.

• Character Acquisition has failed to prove that certain traits can be transferred to successive generations, for it is the gene that controls these attributes.
• Mutation has not adequately explained or demonstrated that mutants can produce healthy, stronger, more adaptable, and desirable offspring. They are usually sickly, weak, disease ridden, and fail in the arena of competition.
• The Geologic Column does not record the gradual transitional forms which evolutionists claimed to be the elusive answer. In fact, most sample from Transitional Jumping (Punctuated Equilibria) also fails to adequately explain that most animals remain unchanged for millions of years, and then somehow leaped into new forms due to dynamic environmental changes. This is not fact, theory, or hypothesis! These are suggestions. No one has adequately explained how the jumping process works? This is really jumping to a conclusion. This process requires a greater degree of faith than believing the Bible.
• Transitioning through gradual processes has been abandoned by many Evolutionists. The very thing, the intermediary links that Darwin searched for have been rejected in favor of new forms created through monumental leaps.

Actually, the Creationist has always had a happy home in the Geologic Column. There are so many things that lend validation to what we find in the Bible. For example, the earliest strata of rock is termed Cambrian. And it is here that we discover an explosion of life, and a complexity of life.

If Macro evolution is true, then we should expect a preponderance, not scarcity, of information which demonstrates processes whereby one distinctive organism changed into an entirely new, distinctive organism. This obvious lack of incontrovertible evidence has been the birth mother of Neo-Darwinism, one more approach to explaining the hypothesis of evolution by mixing different attributes of older theories into a brand new concept. “Neo-Darwinism is an attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics which states that organisms do not change over time with Darwinism which claims that they do.” — Lynn Margulis {  G  }

Our intention in this exercise has been two-fold: (1) to carefully examine the basic tenets of evolution and determine whether observable processes successfully refute the biblical record of creation in Genesis; and (2) to advocate that the biblical record of Genesis is reasonable, sensible, and convincing. Why is it convincing? Because every new birth in the human and animal kingdom still adheres to the biblical mandate of “Kind producing after their Kind”, and the most profound efforts to subvert it constantly results in complete failure and frustration. Every time a newborn infant emerges from the womb of human or animal, the Bible rejoices with one more validation of itself. Therefore, we conclude that the hypothesis of Macro evolution does not successfully refute the biblical law of: Kind producing after their Kind.

BIBLICAL SENSE

Since faith is generally assumed to be entwined with studying the Bible, may one successfully argue that a discussion of biblical events will make sense apart from the necessity of exercising faith? Yes, certainly. We shall demonstrate the trustworthiness of an ancient witness apart from faith, although believers will most certainly start from a position of faith.

Charles A. Young published General Astronomy for Colleges and Scientific Schools in 1898, a college level textbook that was routinely cited as the authoritative word on astronomical disciplines. Today, it is has little academic value other than amusing reading. Why? Because of concepts such as the following. (1) The heat from our sun comes from it's cooling off (like a burning log); whereas we now know that the heat from our sun results from the changing of 4.2 million tons of matter into energy each second. (2) The solar system was formed according to the Nebular Hypothesis; a concept which is generally refuted. {  F  } (3) Young believed that dark spots in our night sky were holes through which we look into empty space; whereas now we know that most of the universe is far beyond our own galaxy. Just think of the implications. In less than one hundred years, the best specialized reference material that man can produce is outdated! Although written by a distinguished authority, this textbook offers little more than humorous reading. But the creation account of Genesis is almost four thousand years old, and it stands as a fierce competitor in the modern arena of ideas. Additionally, this record was written, not by astronomers, physicists, cosmologists, or scientists -- but sheepherders. One of the reasons why some Christians are so quick in attempting to compromise Genesis with evolution is because this ancient record so easily lends itself to modern scientific teachings.

In the following chart, we are NOT EQUATING the biblical record with modern science, but only EXHIBITING the amazing parallels between the two philosophies.

Evolutions try to claim science is on their side and that is somewhat true because Christians appeal to the biblical record through faith. In this We have illustrated that it is intellectually unwise to discount the biblical record as scientifically unreliable, for much of the actual Genesis record is taught in modern science classrooms. We iterate that the Genesis record is almost four thousand years old, written by sheepherders, and remains a fierce philosophic competitor in the modern arena of ideas. Although many professors dismiss the biblical account of creation as mere collections of stories, they walk to their classrooms and teach almost the same thing! Modern theories concerning the development of the universe and the subsequent appearance of life need constant revision, because as Charles Young has demonstrated, in less than a century, they may offer us little more than humorous reading.

FOOTNOTES

Return to Inspiration

Written by Ron Gordon