This series investigates the theory of evolution, revealing that there is much more to the story than what is commonly taught. After laying a truthful foundation and building upon it, the reader will see that the theory collapses, and that the confusing series of explanations, definitions and suppositions supporting it are weak and shallow. Each part builds upon the previous, and the entire series should be read to grasp the fullest picture—and the vital implications that flow from its conclusions.
Originating as the brainchild of Charles Darwin, the definition of evolution has itself evolved into many shapes and sizes. In his book, The Origin of Species, Darwin postulated that all living creatures (and, by extension, even matter) evolved from a less complex life form or substance. His theory purports that life began by accident—blind chance—and that everything we know today is the result of happenstance.
While the general scope of evolution is still contested, even among evolutionists, it can be separated into six primary disciplines: cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro, and micro.
Cosmic evolution encompasses the origin of the universe, time and matter. The Big Bang theory falls within this discipline.
Chemical evolution involves the origin of complex elements. This discipline also attempts to explain the process in which those elements formed.
Stellar and planetary evolution focuses on the origin of stars and planets. This is distinct from cosmic evolution, yet at times can overlap it.
Organic evolution attempts to explain the origin of living matter. Origin of life research centers upon this discipline.
The two final disciplines, macro- and micro-evolution, are most often wrongly interchanged. They are not meant to detail the origin of living matter, but attempt to explain the innumerable variety of plants and animals. Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations, within a species. Macro-evolution takes this further, stating that such adaptations and mutations will, over time, create a new species of plants or animals. Micro-evolution attempts to explain variety within a particular species, while macro-evolution attempts to prove a common link between all species, families or phyla.
This may sound complicated—because it is! Often, evolutionists cannot even agree on where the lines start and stop. They even say that macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over extremely long periods of time.
There is ample evidence demonstrating micro-evolution. For instance, when a virus becomes resistant to antibiotics, it is indicative of micro-evolution. Often, such evidence is used to “prove” macro-evolution, thus employing the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. (To learn more about logical fallacies, read Part One of this series.) There is absolutely no solid proof for macro-evolution—none!
Blurring these disciplines has led to much confusion among the general public and to heated debate among scientists.
Recall the logical fallacy of begging the question. It occurs when an assumption is used to prove a conclusion; in turn, that conclusion is used to prove the original assumption. The crux of evolution is based upon this fallacy. Many aspects of evolution’s fundament are nothing more than assumptions used to explain and “prove” other hypotheses. This is not the scientific method—and not how legitimate science operates!
Approach this subject like a scientist. As you read, remember that if any assumption can be shown to be false—or impossible to validate—any conclusions based upon it crumble to pieces.
To remove all doubt, most of the major tenets of evolution will be shown to be nothing more than assumptions. Many are so important that disproving even one causes the entire theory to collapse.
As we cover each point, the logical fallacy evolution employs will become clear. Get ready to be amazed by the “science” used to substantiate this nearly universally believed theory.
The first assumption is the gradual transition of referring to the theory as a tried, tested and proven scientific fact—in essence, assuming evolution to be true. The certainty with which such statements are made leaves most people convinced that scientists have corroborating evidence. One statement from Theodosius Dobzhansky’s book, The Biological Basis of Human Freedom, illustrates the point well: “Evolution as a historical fact was proved beyond reasonable doubt not later than in the closing decades of the nineteenth century.”
Such blind conviction among some evolutionary scientists has led most schools in North America to teach evolution as both a scientific and historical fact.
But not all evolutionists agree with Dobzhansky’s conclusion: “What was the ultimate origin of man?…Unfortunately, any answers which can at present be given to these questions are based on indirect evidence and thus are largely conjectural” (W. LeGros Clark, Discover, Jan. 1955, emphasis ours throughout).
Pierre-Paul Grassé, a world renowned zoologist, author of more than 300 publications, and former president of the Academie des Sciences, stated, “Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved” (The Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977).
While these quotes speak loudly, the purpose here is not yet to disprove evolution, only to demonstrate that it is not a tried and tested fact.
A scientific fact is defined as “an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true.” From just the quotes above, we can see that observations and tests show inconsistencies, and that neither an evolutionist nor an influential zoologist accepted evolution as fact. How could evolution be considered fact when such divergent opinions exist?
In truth, by true scientific standards, evolution is not even a theory! A scientific theory is defined as a “theory that explains scientific observations; scientific theories must be falsifiable.”
To survive as a legitimate theory, there must be some test or tests proving it valid or else it should be discarded. Without a test, it is not a scientific theory.
For example, a theory arising from observing an orange sunset could state that the sunset is always orange. A test then exists to prove or disprove the theory. (One could watch sunsets for a year and record their color.) This means the theory fulfills the requirements to be scientific. Of course, if a red, yellow or violet sunset is observed, the honest scientist would abandon the hypothesis and develop a new theory. The cycle would continue until a theory is proven as fact. This is the basis of the scientific method.
Does the theory of evolution meet these two conditions? Is it the result of scientific observation, and can it be put to the test? It could be argued that with no observed examples of macro-evolution on record, the theory is more based on faith, hope and belief than scientific observation. Further, nearly all evolutionists purport that most major evolutionary changes occurred millions of years ago. But events in the distant past are not testable and, therefore, cannot ever be proven (or disproven).
When evidence that is no longer available (because it is extremely old) is used to prove a premise, the logical fallacy of chronological snobbery has been employed!
Evolutionists should recognize their “theory” is neither a scientific fact nor even a theory. This may explain why most resort to convoluted arguments and logical fallacies.
Such thinking is best summarized by world-renowned biochemist Dr. Michael Denton: “His [Darwin’s] general theory that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe” (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis).
Evolution is not a fact; it is not even a scientific theory. As Dr. Denton stated, it is nothing more than a “highly speculative hypothesis.” Again we can ask: How can something so contested, even by those who profess to believe it, be taught in schools as fact?
One of the most basic tenets of evolution is the assumption of “survival of the fittest.” Simply put, it is the concept that nature grants preference to the fittest and most adaptable of a species to produce offspring and therefore survive.
You may have heard this so many times that you have never questioned this seemingly logical statement. Remember, you must approach evolution scientifically, not based on assumption or ingrained presumptions.
Famous polymath author Arthur Koestler addressed this subject well: “Once upon a time, it all looked so simple. Nature rewarded the fit with the carrot of survival and punished the unfit with the stick of extinction. The trouble only started when it came to defining fitness...Thus natural selection looks after the survival and reproduction of the fittest, and the fittest are those which have the highest rate of reproduction...We are caught in a circular argument which completely begs the question of what makes evolution evolve” (Janus: A Summing Up).
In other words, the fittest are those who survive; and those who survive are deemed the fittest. This is circular logic! It assumes that just because something survived, it is the fittest.
In science, you cannot base a conclusion on an assumption, especially if you then use the conclusion to prove the original assumption. This would not pass muster in a high school debate class, but has tragically become all too common in evolutionary science.
Survival of the fittest is a loose “tautology,” a way of saying something redundantly. For instance, “survivors survive”; “water is wet”; “matter is material”; and so on. Such statements do not prove anything, because they are nothing more than truisms.
Yet even with such information, evolutionists willingly ignore the facts: “Most evolutionary biologists seem unconcerned about the charge and make only a token effort to explain the tautology away. The remainder…simply concede the fact. For them, natural selection is a tautology which states a heretofore unrecognized relation: The fittest—defined as those who will leave the most offspring—will leave the most offspring” (emphasis ours).
“What is most unsettling is that some evolutionary biologists have no qualms about proposing tautologies as explanations. One would immediately reject any lexicographer who tried to define a word by the same word, or a thinker who merely restated his proposition, or any other instance of gross redundancy; yet no one seems scandalized that men of science should be satisfied with a major principle which is no more than a tautology” (Gregory Alan Peseley, The Epistemological Status of Natural Selection).
Some scientists may argue, “We have witnessed natural selection. It happens around the world on a daily basis. It is provable!” They point to natural selection as a means to remove the unfit—not a process that favors the “fittest.” At best, you could call natural selection a “survival of the average.”
Natural selection is a system that removes the weak, infirm and unfit from species. This ensures that populations are healthy and thriving. It can be witnessed by the instinctive actions of a lion attacking the weakest of a zebra herd. The herd remains healthy, because the weak are removed. In no way, shape or form does it propel some supposed “fittest” to the front of the pack! Evolutionists must account for new species by, as Darwin purported, successive series of minor changes. Natural selection removes the weak and promotes stability among a species, the exact opposite of what evolutionists require!
A famous Dutch botanist best explained the problem by stating, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest” (Hugo deVries, Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation).
Interestingly, natural selection did not originate in the mind of Charles Darwin. In fact, it was documented 20 years earlier by Edward Blyth, a zoologist, chemist and creationist. Darwin changed the correct observation of a passive “natural process of selection” to the active “natural means of selection.” He changed it from a readily understood and accepted theory to a circular logic truism!
Like all such truisms, the false interpretation of natural selection attempts to explain everything, but, in reality, explains nothing. Falsely assumed by so many, this pillar of evolution is nothing more than a redundant statement proving nothing!
Even with just two assumptions of evolution detailed, you should already begin to understand how so many scientists illogically view evolution as fact. The scientific theory of evolution has already broken down just by using logic.
We ended Part One with the question of how it could be taught in high schools; we could now ask why it is believed by anyone. There is much, much more to cover as this faulty science is exposed and the house of cards completely topples.