Chapter 2 - Is Evolution really Scientific Fact?

In the last chapter, I described my personal journey of discovery into my Origins. I started by adopting, with some reluctance, the general secular belief of Naturalistic Evolution, that we are all a product of blind naturalistic forces that brought about life in its simplest form and then caused it to evolve into ever higher forms. Then upon becoming a believer, I was told that I could still believe in Evolution, in the form of Theistic Evolution, whereby God originally created life, but then used the process Evolution to develop it into ever higher forms.

But upon studying the Bible further I came to understand that its teaching was incompatible with Evolution. It clearly taughtCreationism, that God did not evolve higher forms from lower forms, but directly created each major life-form to reproduce according to its kind. Thus although God gave each kind of plant and animal the genetic potential for much variation, it is always ‘horizontal change’ within the kind, not the kind of vertical (upward) change demanded by ‘molecules to man’ Evolution. Creationism claims that God gave each kind the ability to adapt to its environment through natural selection, but not the ability to change into higher more complex forms of life.

So I was left with a challenge. Would I believe in Creation or Evolution? Would I trust God (Who ought to know what happened as He was there!) or what the scientific establishment, and many of my Christian friends said? This was a dilemma as God’s WORD and His WORLD should both agree with each other! Both are revelations of Himself and so they should point in the same direction, but while the Bible spoke of Creation, Science (or so I was told) revealed Evolution. This made it difficult to make the choice between Creation and Evolution. So I decided to take a closer look at the scientific evidence for myself. What kind of change is actually seen in living nature and in the Fossil Record? 

Is it the kind of change predicted by Creation or the change claimed by Evolution? Does the actual evidence show ‘molecules to man’ evolution or simply variation within a kind? Do we see an evolutionary trail of creatures transforming ever upward into higher, more complex life-forms? Or do we just see horizontal changes without increases in complexity, as Creationism predicts?

Imagine my surprise when I found that the so-called evidence for Evolution was an illusion. It was just not there! All that is actually observable was the kind of change predicted by Creationism. 

‘Molecules to Man Evolution’, where life-forms increase in complexity by themselves, has never been observed in real-life, even on a tiny scale! This is not surprising considering that it would contradict the well-established laws of Information Theory, which say that systems by themselves can only lose information (complexity) and never gain it, unless there is an external source adding in new information. Now evolutionists, knowing that this is true, complain that this ‘observational test’ is not fair, considering that we have only had 150 years to look for this evidence, whereas Evolution requires millions of years to take place. Fine, but please don’t pretend that Evolution is observable scientific fact when it is manifestly NOT. Please be honest and admit that Evolution is just an unproven story of our origins. You may chose to believe it, because you don’t want to believe the only alternative explanation (Creation), but please don’t make the claim it is observable science.

What we actually see in living nature and in the fossil record is a variety of kinds of highly developed life-forms. Within each kind (e.g. the dog kind) there are many varieties that derive from a common ancestor, but there is no evidence of one kind changing into a higher kind, as Evolution would have it, or of higher kinds deriving their ancestry from lower kinds. Therefore Evolution is simply a hypothetical story that postulates that the higher forms developed from the lower forms, so they are all related as part of a single evolutionary tree.

However all that we can actually observe are the tips of the branches, not the branches themselves. In other words, if Evolution were true there should be clear evidence of lower-forms changing into a higher-forms in the fossil-record. In reality, there is a total lack of these intermediate transitional forms! The evidence that should be there in the fossil-record is in fact missing and massively so, as we should have found hundreds of thousands of clear transitional forms by now. In fact, the game is really now up on Evolution, since our knowledge of the fossil record is now sufficiently complete to deduce that there is a total, wide-scale absence of the transitional-forms that Darwinian Evolution requires and predicts. Despite 150 years of fossil hunting and the discovery of millions of fossils all over the world, the missing links are still missing in massive numbers. 

The main testable prediction of Evolution has failed and thus the Evolutionary Hypothesis should have fallen by now. Due to human nature and vested interests it always takes time for the scientific establishment to reject an established theory in favour of a new one. However in the case of Evolution there is in addition strong spiritual reasons for many to believe it against all the evidence, since it concerns our Origins. For, if someone rejects Evolution they are left with Creation as the only alternative Hypothesis. 

All we see now is a desperate attempt to find the odd fossil that could be interpreted as a missing link. But the odd few that have been presented (with a great fanfare of publicity) have either turned out to be forgeries, or can more easily be interpreted as a simple variation within a pre-existing kind. There are still no clear-cut proven examples of evolutionary transitional forms either taking place now or recorded in the fossil record. 

Charles Darwin: “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 serious objection which can be urged against the theory.” Darwin was not unduly concerned since fossil-hunting was still in its early days and so he expected that the transitional forms would soon come to light, especially with everyone looking for them in order to prove his theory. Therefore he was proposing transitional forms as a test for his theory, capable of proving or disproving it. Such a test which makes a hypothesis falsifiable, brings a hypothesis within the realms of science. However 150 years later the transitional forms are still missing on a massive scale, and Evolution has failed its own scientific-test. Therefore the honest scientific response would surely be to reject the Hypothesis of Evolution. 

The late Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British natural History Museum, answering why no pictures of transitional forms in his major book on Evolution: “I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. if I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such a transformation, but where would he get his information from? I could not honestly provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? ...Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils.... 
I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”

As the National Geographic said in November 2004: “999 out of 1000 frames of the picture of evolution are missing.” (I would say 1000 out of 1000 (the 1000th frame is highly dubious). 

This is of course well-known and embarrassing to Evolutionists, and so there have been various attempts to get round this and hide this. First of all has been the recent development of Neo-Darwinism which acknowledges the lack of transitional forms and gets round it by postulating that Evolution did not take place (as originally thought) in small increments, but in large jumps. Therefore it has been dubbed: ‘the hopeful monster theory’ (which goes against what we know from genetics which suggests slow gradual change). Thus Evolution just jumped suddenly over the massive gap from one life form to a higher form, and that is why there is no trace of transitional forms in the record!

We are just told that this happened without being given an explanation of how it happened. In other words, having failed its major test, Evolution reinvented itself to get round it, but in the process it has made itself UNFALSIFIABLE and UNTESTABLE, for it says that Evolution happened but it happened in such a way that it left no traces. This means that it is at best a Hypothesis of Origins, but it is certainly NOT SCIENCE as science is normally defined, and to call it science is being deceptive. 

This made my choice easy, for God’s Creation was revealed in both the Word and the World, whereas ‘microbes to man Evolution’ was contradicted by both. I discovered that something like a magicians hand-trick was being used to create the illusion that Evolution was happening - by equating it with Natural Selection. You see Natural Selection is a well-known and obvious process of nature whereby certain characteristics become dominant in a population of animals because they favour their survival. In this way their genetic pool enables them to adapt to the environment as the fittest survive and pass on their genes. But this process is completely different from the hypothetical process of Evolution, where ever higher orders of animal are developed. But when asked for evidence and examples for Evolution, all that Evolutionists can come up with are examples of Natural Selection - pretending that Evolution and Natural-Selection are the same thing! 

It was a case of the Emperor’s New Clothes. 
Do you remember the story about the Emperor who cared too much about clothes? He hired two swindlers who promised him the finest suit of clothes from the most beautiful cloth. This cloth, they told him, is invisible to anyone who was either stupid or unfit for his position. The Emperor could not see the (non-existent) cloth, but pretended that he could because he did not want to appear stupid; his ministers did the same. When the swindlers reported that the suit was finished, they dressed him in mime. The Emperor then went on a procession through the capital showing off his new "clothes". During the course of the procession, a small child cries out, "But he has nothing on!" The crowd realises the child is telling the truth. The Emperor however, holds his head high and continues the procession

I felt like the boy. The Emperor in this case is EVOLUTION, and his lack of clothes is the lack of evidence for it. But everyone who ought to know (the establishment) kept saying: “Look at the wonderful clothes. Evolution is a fact. It has been proved.” 

They could not see the clothes, but pretended they could see them in order to keep their reputation safe, as part of the establishment. Everyone else in the crowd agreed. They themselves could not see the clothes, but they did not want to look stupid, so they just repeated what the so-called experts told them: “Evolution is Science. Evolution is fact!” But its embarrassing nakedness is obvious to all who will take a proper look. If someone says to you that Evolution is a fact, ask them, ‘OK what scientific evidence do you have for that’, and get ready for an embarrassed silence, or something like: “O everyone knows that.” Eventually like the boy in the story, I took a good hard look at the clothes of Evolution (as we will in this Series) and came to the obvious conclusion that the Emperor has no clothes on! It then takes a certain amount of courage to declare the obvious truth, like the boy did, because it contradicted the claims of the establishment and the crowds.

We must understand certain issues otherwise we will be intimidated by all the repeating voices that say Evolution is an established fact. We need to know what is the actual evidence for Evolution. The world says: “Evolution is proved by Science.” Is this true or is it just a mantra used to hide the lack of evidence? 

Now it is a fact that Evolution has never been observed and much of the circumstantial evidence that we have actually contradicts it, so it is no more than a Hypothesis (and a weak one at that), but for other reasons it is promoted as Fact by the Scientific Establishment and so public debate on the issue is squashed. 

*EVOLUTION is NOT NATURAL SELECTION. 
Now when I say Evolution has never been observed you may be thinking: “what about the examples that they gave us at School: 
the Galapagos Finches and the Peppered Moths.” 
All these are simply examples of NATURAL SELECTION which is about how animals with certain characteristics that help them survive are more likely to mate and pass on those characteristics. In different environments different characteristics become dominant (e.g. skin colour, length of beaks etc.). 

But EVOLUTION is not at all the same as Natural Selection. Evolution is the hypothesis that explains how an single-celled amoeba becomes a man, how higher forms of life descend from lower ones. This has never been observed, so even if you believe it, how can you call it Science? Call it what it is: your faith!

No one disputes Natural Selection, because it is entirely obvious. 
It can even be essentially stated as a Tautology: 
“Those best fitted to survive in their environment will survive better and so reproduce more than others, so that their characteristics will become more dominant in the population.” 

What is highly questionable is the claim of Evolution that Natural Selection acting on Mutations (random copying mistakes), can explain the gradual development of all higher life-forms from the original basic life-form (from amoeba to man) as this contradicts information theory. Every time you copy something, you lose not gain information. The reality is that all mutations result in a loss of information and complexity (genetic entropy). Evolution through mutation and selection is just a story that has been accepted because no-one can think of any better explanation, but it has never been observed. Mutations are almost always destructive, and even the one or two that have conferred an advantage have done it by removing rather adding complexity, producing an immunity to attack .

No creative mutation has yet been observed that actually produces an increase of complexity or a higher level organism. So when you ask someone for actual examples of Evolution, you will probably be given an example of Natural Selection because that is all they can give you. But don’t be fooled into thinking that this is evidence for Evolution!

The Alternative Hypothesis to Evolution is that God created every basic kind of plant and animal with complexity and the ability to reproduce and with the genetic richness which enables them to adapt to varying environments through Natural Selection.