The Theory of Evolution
are we? Where did we come from? In addition, where are
we going? These questions have pondered theologians,
philosophers and scientists. The meaning of our
existence frees us to pursue truth. If we are
accidents, let us eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we
die. If created by an eternal, “First Cause”, we can
pursue the questions of life. Why are we here and where
are we going?
the cosmological (cosmos) and the teleological (design)
arguments, it is logical to conclude the existence of a
“First Cause” for the universe and for life. In
addition, the moral argument demonstrates without moral
absolutes and objective truth there can be no right or
wrong. Man is merely a random collection of protein
molecules nothing more or less then a collection of
rocks at the bottom of a canyon. Is there way to know
the “First Cause”? What was the process for life to
exist? Was the First Cause active in creation? The
debate on the process of life’s existence has been
divisive. There are two camps with subsets to each
Evolution (Macroevolution) and
Design/Creation are two diametrically opposed views.
Geisler defines evolution,
is a theory or model of origins that holds to the idea
that all varieties of life forms emanated from a single
cell or “Common ancestor”. Macroevolutionist believe
that once the first living cells came into existence, it
was just a matter of time, natural selection, and random
molecular biological changes in their genetic
information systems (mutations) that caused new
characteristics (microevolutionary changes) to occur.
creation or design model is a theory diametrically
opposed to the theory of Macroevolution, Geisler writes,
The design model is a theory of origins asserting that all
life forms were designed to experience only limited
genetic variations (microevolution) in order to adapt to
and survive the stresses caused by environmental
difference between these two theories is presupposition.
Macroevolution assumes there was no outside intelligence
involved in the process of life’s creation. Design
assumes there was outside intelligence involved in the
does the Macroevolution work?
Macroevolution assumes there is no outside intelligence
involved in the process of life’s existence. The main
factors are chance and environment. Following the
explosion of matter from nothing, into the universe (Big
Bang), the universe expanded outward. Large gaseous
clouds of matter condensed into stars and collected into
galaxies. Around our star, the sun, formed planets
composing our solar system, the planet earth, had the
right mixture of environmental factors conducive to
life. In a pond of water, a
right collection of chemicals and environment formed
protein molecules. These molecules later would form
into more complex protein molecules. With the right
environment and time, random collections of chemicals
became living matter, a one-celled organism. With
natural selection and mutation, this first
cell was able to multiply. This cell became the basis of
all future life forms.
The first life like all living matter to follow is made
of carbon-based molecules with its genetic blueprints
encoded in DNA. The cell had the ability to adapt to its
environment through natural selection (Microevolution).
However, in order for this cell to transition to a more
complex form, what is the mode of operation? Since
there is no outside intelligence involved, (According to
the theory of macroevolution) how does a one cell living
organism obtain additional information? The problem
this first living cell would have to overcome in the
evolution of itself into a more complex life form is
solved as a result genetic mutation. Mutation is
inherent in the macroevolution model of life. There are
three views of macroevolution.
Gradualism calls for an organism to change at a very
slow pace by the process of natural selection and random
micro-evolutionary mutations at the genetic level, which
would gradually lead to the emergence of a new life
theory attempts to find a solution to the lack of
transitional forms. It demands that life forms remain
within their own genetic limits for very long periods of
time (Stasis), until environmental pressures force to
“burst forth” (sudden punctuations) into new life forms.
Theistic macroevolution believes God is the cause behind
life on the earth, but that He uses macroevolution to
bring about new life forms and eventually the human
race. This theory was developed by theists who thought
that macroevolution had some academic merit.
Many theistic macro-evolutionists who
believe in gradualism believe that bringing God into the
model relieves them of the nagging problem of the need
for an intelligent cause.
mutation or transmutation is the method one species
transitions to another species in macroevolution via its
transition of life from lizard to eagle according to
those who believe in Macroevolution is the result of a
series of mutations and natural selection. Additional
information is introduced into the living system’s
genetic blueprint. This mutation followed by the natural
selection, selects those aspects that are beneficial,
allowing “upward” mutation. This “new” genetic
information is passed to following generation. These
transitional forms are the precursors of today’s life
forms. However, the fossil record of these forms is
non-existent. Dr. Etheridge from the British Museum
commented on this lack of transitional forms,
"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is
sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly
unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of
the utter falsity of their views. In all this great
museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the
transmutation of species."
Natural Selection (Microevolution)
Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution no mutation is
involved. Microevolution or adaptation uses the genetic
variety already in the system of the living organism.
For example, within every person is a gene code with
genetic potential. If a 7-foot tall woman and a 5-foot
man tall man had children, there is probability some
children may be 7 feet tall and some 5-feet tall.
There is zero probability that they will develop
wings. In order for the couples children to develop
wings new genetic information needs introduction into
their genetic code. Since there is no outside
intelligent source for this information, mutation is the
only viable method. This is the difference between
microevolution and macroevolution. Darrel Kautz,
author of the Origin of Living Things comments on this
"People are misled into believing that since microevolution is
a reality, that therefore macroevolution is such a
reality also. Evolutionists maintain that over long
periods of time small-scale changes accumulate in such a
way as to generate new and more complex organisms ...
This is sheer illusion, for there is no scientific
evidence whatever to support the occurrence of
biological change on such a grand scale.
In spite of all the artificial breeding which
has been done, and all the controlled efforts to modify
fruit flies, the bacillus escherichia (E-coli), and
other organisms, fruit flies remain fruit flies, E-coli
bacteria remain E-coli bacteria, roses remain roses,
corn remains corn, and human beings remain human
difference between microevolution and macroevolution is
a point of confusion for many. Artists produce pictures
such at the one at the top of this article showing the
evolution on man. These pictures, are based on the
artists’ imagination, not science. These imaginary
pictures, presented as facts deceive the public, making
them think Macroevolution is fact. The public then
based on science. Adaptation within species is not a
disputable issue, but is observable. Macroevolution
is not observed anywhere in the fossil record.
trip on the beagle documented microevolution not
macroevolution. Isolated in the Galapagos
Island, Darwin discovered finches that had much longer
beaks than those found off the island. His assumption
was that evolution was changing this species. However,
these finches remained finches. Princeton professor
Peter Grant completed an 18-year study of the finches on
this island. He concluded that during drought years, the
finches with shorter beaks died off because with a
limited supply of seeds, only those that could reach the
grubs living under tree bark could survive. With limited
resources on a small island, these finches could not
migrate to find food.
We clearly observe natural selection, but
not macroevolution. However, it is not a permanent
change. The finch offspring with shorter beaks prospered
during seasons of plenty. Natural adaptation is the
function of microevolution. There are three plainly
observable principles to microevolution.
1. A trait will alter because of a stimulus.
2. The trait will return to the norm if left to nature or
returned to its original conditions.
3. No new information is added to the DNA.
One of the best examples of the creation of
macroevolution evidence is the story of Piltdown-man
used in the scopes monkey trial. (See Below)
Problems with Macroevolution
are severe problems with macroevolution as demonstrated
in the illustration. Macroevolution ultimately argues
that man came from rock. With no transitional fossils,
and mathematically probability rendering evolution
impossibility those holding such a view are operating
under blind faith with little logic behind the position.
Complexity of Life
Describing how a theory works and examining its probability
are two separate issues.
protein molecule is a particularly organized structure
composed of about twenty different amino acids, and each
amino acid is made up of four elements hydrogen, oxygen,
nitrogen and carbon (in two cases a sulfur atom is also
These complex systems are all, in the case
of every known organism, reproduced and assembled on the
basis of the “instructions” built into the DNA molecular
system. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is composed of six
simpler molecules; these consist of four bases, the
arrangement of which specifies the message, made up of
nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and carbon, along with a
deoxyribose sugar molecule and a phosphate molecule
which hold the bases in place.
The DNA molecule not only has information required for
the synthesis of the specific protein molecules needed
by the cell, but also that needed for its own
replication. Thus, reproduction and inheritance depend
directly on this remarkable molecule, as organized
differently and specifically for each kind of organism.
Thus, the problem of abiogeneis devolves
upon the method by which the first replicating system
evolved. The insuperable barrier; however is that
DNA can only be replicated with the specific help of
certain protein molecules (enzymes) which, in turn, can
only produced at the direction of DNA. Each depends on
the other and both must be present for replication to
somehow, if the evolution model is valid, wings have
“Evolved” four different times (in insects, flying
reptiles, birds and bats) eyes have “evolved”
independently at least three times.
Salisbury has recently commented on this remarkable fact
last doubt concerns so-called parallel evolution…Even
something as complex as the eye has appeared several
times; for example, in the squid, the vertebrates, and
the arthropods. It’s bad enough accounting for the
origin of such things once, but the thought of producing
them several times according to the modern synthetic
theory makes my head swim.”
is the most important component in macroevolution; this
is the mechanism to produce the required upward progress
in complexity. There are serious problems with
Mutations are random, not directed.
“It remains true to say that we know of no way other then
random mutation by which new hereditary variation comes
into being, nor any process other than natural selection
by which the hereditary constitution of a population
changes from one generation to the next.”
Mutations are rare
“It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority
of mutations in higher organisms between one in ten
thousand and one in a million per gene per generation”
Good Mutations are very, very rare.
“But mutations are found to be of a random nature, so far as
their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great
majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are
harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects
of accidental occurrences”
Net Effect of All Mutations is Harmful
“The large majority of mutations, however, are harmful or
even lethal to the individual in whom they are
expressed. Such mutations can be regarded as introducing
a ‘load’ or genetic burden, in the pool. The term
genetic load was first used by the late H.J. Muller who
recognized that the rate of mutations is increased by
numerous agents man has introduced into his environment,
notably ionizing radiation and mutagenic chemicals”
Mutations affect and are affected by many genes.
It now appears that each gene affects many characteristics
and every characteristic is controlled by many genes.
“Moreover, despite the fact that a mutation is discrete,
discontinuous effect of the cellular, chromosome or gene
level, its effects are modified by interactions in the
whole genetic system of an individual.”
1. Probability of a complex system arising instantly by
a sea of freely available components, each uniquely
capable of performing a specific useful function. What
is the probability that two or more of them can come
together by chance to form an integrated functioning
As long as the number of components in the organism is small,
the chance association in this way is a reasonable
possibility. For example, consider two components, A
and B. If they happen to link up in the form A-B, say
the combined system will work, but B-A will not work.
There is a ½ probability of success.
If there are 3 components, A,B, and C there are six possible
ways these can link up, ABC, ACB,BAC, BCA,CAB, and CBA.
Since it is assumed that only one of these will work
there is a 1/6 probability of success
The more the components the less the probability, consider,
for example an organism composed of only 100 integrated
parts. Remember that each of these parts must fulfill a
unique function in the organism and so there is only one
way in which these 100 parts can link up, the
probability of a successful chance linkage is only one
out of 10158. (10 with 158 “zeros”)
Research sponsored in part by NASA has shown that the
simplest type of protein molecule that could be said to
be “living” is composed of a chain of at least 400
linked amino acids, and each amino acid is a specific
combination of four or five basic chemical elements.
2. Probability of Synthesis of DNA Molecule
problem discussed is oversimplified. A simple linked
protein molecule, or any other such system, could never
reproduce itself. In the world of living organism, the
phenomena of reproduction and inheritance are always
directed by the DNA molecule. The evolution of life
therefore must have involved somehow the accidental
synthesis of the first such DNA molecule. Frank
Salisbury, who is himself an evolutionary biologist,
discusses this riddle as follows:
Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we
had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning
enzymes, each one of them a complex machine itself.
Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to
a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the
gene (its complexity) must be as great as that of the
enzyme it controls.
A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA
gene controlling this would have about 1000 nucleotides
in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides
in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1000 links could exist
in 41000=10600. This number is
completely beyond our comprehension.
The Design Theory:
theory of creation as opposed to evolution sees the
“First cause” of the universe as the designer of life.
There are two views of the creation theory; Progressive
and Young Earth.
progressive model teaches that God created life in
stages that parallel the days of creation. The days in
creation were not literal days, but successive periods.
Creation of the space-time universe
Big Bang of cosmology (light bursts forth from
Earth formed/water begins to condense/global sea
emerges/atmosphere (expanse) created
Volcanic activity ends/Earth cools/ atmosphere
forms over the sea (troposphere-greenhouse
Dry land created/Earth-moon system
created/atmosphere becomes transparent
(single-celled plant life created by now)
Origin of double planet system theory of the
origin of the moon from the Earth would create a
basin in the earth for water to gather to one
Creation of sea animals (multicellular to
amphibians/reptiles/winged animals) creation of
“Great reptiles” (the largest reptiles are
Cambrian explosion/age of fish (array of
multicellular animals having the body plans of
virtually all creatures that now swim, fly or
crawl throughout the world.)
Creation of land animals (domesticated
livestock, non-domesticated-wild) creation of
Age of amphibians/reptiles
Age of mammals/humanity
young Earth model views creation from a literal 6 day,
24 hour creation. The universe is created with the
appearance of age. Adam, for example, was not created as
a baby but as a full-grown man with the appearance of
age. The same can be said for the creation of wine at
Cana, Jesus created wine from water a process that
normally takes time, the wine had an appearance of age,
though it was created moments prior. Supernatural events
are not subject to the physical world. The creation of
the universe is a supernatural event. Matter, space and
time exploded into existence at God’s creation of the
about Noah’s Arc?
deposits of coal and oil underneath the Earth
surface demonstrate living matter was covered by
sedimentary deposits of the great deluge. Oil and
Coal are the remains of dead living matter.
Fossils only occur if living matter is immediately
buried. The large numbers of fossils are the result
of the deluge in Noah’s day.
life fossils are the top of Mt. Everest in addition
to the rest of the mountain chains.
Languages, both written and spoken demonstrate that
mankind was once a single tribal group that
separated in the past.
Day of Creation
the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth. 2The earth was without form,
and void; and darkness was on
the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was
hovering over the face of the waters.
of matter, space and time.
God said, “Let there be light”; and there was
light. 4And God saw the light, that
it was good; and God divided the light
from the darkness. 5God called the
light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So
the evening and the morning were the first day.
Creation of light, and its physical properties.
God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst
of the waters, and let it divide the waters from
the waters.” 7Thus God made the
firmament, and divided the waters which were
under the firmament from the waters which
were above the firmament; and it was so.
8And God called the firmament Heaven.
So the evening and the morning were the second
Condensation of matter to form the earth,
Creation of the watery planet.
God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be
gathered together into one place, and let the
dry land appear”; and it was so. 10And
God called the dry land Earth, and the
gathering together of the waters He called Seas.
And God saw that it was good.
God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the
herb that yields seed, and the
fruit tree that yields fruit according to
its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the
earth”; and it was so. 12And the
earth brought forth grass, the herb that
yields seed according to its kind, and the tree
that yields fruit, whose seed is
in itself according to its kind. And God saw
that it was good. 13So the
evening and the morning were the third day.
The appearance of land, and separation from
Plants are created with genetic variety,
God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament
of the heavens to divide the day from the night;
and let them be for signs and seasons, and for
days and years; 15and let them be for
lights in the firmament of the heavens to give
light on the earth”; and it was so. 16Then
God made two great lights: the greater light to
rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the
night. He made the stars also. 17God
set them in the firmament of the heavens to give
light on the earth, 18and to rule
over the day and over the night, and to divide
the light from the darkness. And God saw that
it was good. 19So the evening and
the morning were the fourth day.
The matter in the universe is organized and is
turned on. The light and light sources are
created. The Sun and moon. The stars in the
universe is created for light on the earth
during the night.
God said, “Let the waters abound with an
abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly
above the earth across the face of the firmament
of the heavens.” 21So God created
great sea creatures and every living thing that
moves, with which the waters abounded, according
to their kind, and every winged bird according
to its kind. And God saw that it was
good. 22And God blessed them, saying,
“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters
in the seas, and let birds multiply on the
earth.” 23So the evening and the
morning were the fifth day.
All varieties of birds and sea animals are
created each with genetic variety and
God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living
creature according to its kind: cattle and
creeping thing and beast of the earth, each
according to its kind”; and it was so. 25And
God made the beast of the earth according to its
kind, cattle according to its kind, and
everything that creeps on the earth according to
its kind. And God saw that it was good.
God said, “Let Us make man in Our image,
according to Our likeness; let them have
dominion over the fish of the sea, over the
birds of the air, and over the cattle, over
all the earth and over every creeping
thing that creeps on the earth.” 27So
God created man in His own image; in the
image of God He created him; male and female He
created them. 28Then God blessed
them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and
multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have
dominion over the fish of the sea, over the
birds of the air, and over every living thing
that moves on the earth.”
God said, “See, I have given you every herb
that yields seed which is on the face
of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit
yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
30Also, to every beast of the earth, to
every bird of the air, and to everything that
creeps on the earth, in which there is
life, I have given every green herb for
food”; and it was so. 31Then God saw
everything that He had made, and indeed it
was very good. So the evening and the
morning were the sixth day.
Land animals and insects with genetic variety
and kind are created. Man is created in the
image of the “First Cause”.
These website are very helpful for those seeking
called Dawson's dawn man (Eoanthropus dawsoni), proposed
species of extinct hominid whose fossil remains,
discovered in England in1910–12, were later proved to be
fraudulent. Piltdown man, whose fossils were
sufficiently convincing to generate a scholarly
controversy lasting more than 40 years, was one of the
most successful hoaxes in the history of science.
series of discoveries in 1910–12, Charles Dawson, an
English lawyer and amateur geologist, found what
appeared to be the fossilized fragments of a cranium, a
jawbone, and other specimens in a gravel formation at
Barkham Manor, on Piltdown Common near Lewes in Sussex.
Dawson brought the specimens to Arthur Smith Woodward,
keeper of the British Museum's paleontology department,
who announced the find at a meeting of the Geological
Society of London on Dec. 18, 1912. Woodward claimed
that the fossils represented a previously unknown
species of extinct hominid (E. dawsoni) that could be
the missing evolutionary link between apes and early
humans. His claims were eagerly and uncritically
endorsed by some prominent English scientists, perhaps
because the Piltdown fossils suggested that the British
Isles had been an important site of early human
as the remains were accorded a high antiquity, Piltdown
man seemed a feasible alternative to Homo erectus (then
known from scanty remains as Pithecanthropus) as an
ancestor of modern humans. In 1926, however, the
Piltdown gravels were found to be much less ancient than
supposed, and from 1930, more finds of Pithecanthropus,
the discoveries of the more primitive Australopithecus,
and further examples of Neanderthal man left Piltdown
man completely isolated in the evolutionary sequence. In
1953–54, as an outcome of these discoveries, an
intensive scientific reexamination of the Piltdown
remains showed them to be the skillfully disguised
fragments of a quite modern human cranium (about 600
years old), the jaw and teeth of an orangutan, and the
tooth probably of a chimpanzee, all fraudulently
introduced into the shallow gravels. Chemical tests
revealed that the fragments had been deliberately
stained, some with chromium and others with acid iron
sulfate solution (neither chromium nor sulfate occurs in
the locality) and that, although the associated remains
were of genuine extinct animals, they were not of
British provenance. The teeth, too, had been subjected
to artificial abrasion to simulate the human mode of
first solid evidence regarding the identity of the
perpetrator emerged in 1996, two decades after a trunk
marked with the initials M.A.C.H. had been discovered in
storage at the British Museum in 1975. Upon analyzing
bones found in the trunk, the British paleontologists
Brian Gardiner and Andrew Currant found that they had
been stained in the exact same way as the Piltdown
fossils. The trunk apparently had belonged to Martin A.C.
Hinton, who became keeper of zoology at the British
Museum in 1936. Hinton, who in 1912 was working as a
volunteer at the museum, may have treated and planted
the Piltdown bones as a hoax in order to ensnare and
embarrass A.S. Woodward, who had rebuffed Hinton's
request for a weekly wage. Hinton presumably used the
bones in the steamer trunk for practice before treating
the bones used in the actual hoax.