Molecule to Man: The Theory of Evolution

Every culture in the history of the world has held to a dominant creation myth. The term "myth" is not defined as something false, but as the dominant story or belief that brings meaning and understanding to a particular culture. Mythology in the ancient world provided a way of thinking. Creation myths were what ancient cultures believed about the origin of life and all existence. They have been found in Babylon, Canaan, Egypt, and many other locations.

The theory of evolution is a modern-day creation myth. In its various forms it has become the dominant view - particularly in the academic world. Most scientists view the theory of evolution as they would the theory of relativity or the theory of continental drift.

What do you think most people would say about evolution? Is it fact or fiction? A popular high school biology textbook tells students, "Of course, there have never been any kind of plan to evolution because evolution works without either plan or purpose...it is important to keep this concept in mind: evolution is random and undirected."

The confusion for most people lies in the way evolution is defined, or more often, not defined. We can think of evolution in two ways. First, microevolution is the idea of small change or variations within species. For example, people grow taller, flies and mosquitoes become immune to insecticides, and animals adapt to varying conditions in order to survive. If they don't adapt, they don't survive. Nobody denies the reality of microevolution.

However, evolution as envisioned by Charles Darwin may be more accurately described as macroevolution. This is the idea that all species, including you, can be accounted for through small, gradual changes taking place over long periods of time without the intervention of God. The whole process is guided by natural selection - the concept of the survival of the fittest, a completely random and blind process. In summary, evolution can be defined as gradual change over time, moving from simple forms of life to the more complext, all the while being guided by blind processes as if by nothing but nature itself.

Three Challenges to Macroevolution

The first problem lies with the myth of some primordial soup, that is bringing life from non-life. How does that happen? No one knows the answer - it's a mystery. The distinguished astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle assessed the odds of life coming from non-life with the analogy: "What are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junkyard containing all the parts of a 747, accidentally assemble them into a plane ready for take-off? The possibilities are so small..." I can't speak for you, but I sure wouldn't get on that plane!

The second problem concerns the fossil record. According to evolution, the fossil record should uncover the slow, gradual development of life found in the drawings of geological textbooks. Instead, the fossil record reveals what is known as the Cambrian explosion. There is no gradual development, but only complete development of animal life, fully formed and unchanged up to the present with no record of fossil ancestors prior to them. In other words, horses have always been horses and sheep have always been sheep and humans have always been humans.

The third problem with the evolutionary theory is the complexity of living cells. Science has uncovered wonderful discoveries about the complexity of them. Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote: "We have always underestimated the cell...the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines."

All these machines are composed of complicated moving parts. Take one part away and the machine won't function properly. They are undeniably complex. How did cells spontaneously develop to these levels of functioning complexities without an intelligent designer? Blind processes cannot account for these complexities.

Is Darwinian evolution an established fact of science? Consider the words of Cambridge anatomist Sir Arthur Keith: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."

Question to Consider: How might you explain the difference between macro and microevolution to a friend?