Evolution

In 1859 Charles Darwin published his book titled "The Origin of the Species" in which he put forth his theory of evolution.  This theory has a number of ideas about how life started and developed on Earth.  For nearly 150 years scientist have been looking for evidence to support this theory.  Many fossils seem to support the theory along with discoveries in genetics and biology, and a majority of scientist today accept the theory.  However the evidence is not conclusive and some evidence points in another direction, and a number of scientist are questioning the total theory of evolution.  As in physics with Newton's theory, a time came when new observations no longer supported the theory and Newton's law was modified with a new theory of Einstein's. (See page on Relativity)  It may be time that we need to modify or abandon the theory of Evolution to support new observations.

First we will review the theory of evolution, then look at some of the evidence that does not support the theory.

---

Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution

There are 4 main points to the theory of Evolution as outlined as follows:

1. Evolution has occurred.
2. Evolutionary change is gradual, requiring thousands or millions of years.
3. The primary mechanism for evolution is a process called "Natural Selection".
4. That millions of species present on Earth today arose from a single original life form through a branching process called "speciation", by which one species can give rise to another.

Natural Selection, sometimes referred to as "Survival of the Fittest" states that all living organisms must compete for food and shelter in order to survive.  Where resources are scarce, some will live and others will die.  Their lives are also threatened by animals of prey, by unfavorable weather, and other environmental conditions.

Darwin suggested that members of a species that survived, had special traits that enabled them to survive.  These favorable traits would then be passed on to the offspring of the species.  Unfavorable traits are eventually eliminated.  When this process occurs in two isolated populations of one species, members of one species may become genetically different to the point that they are regarded as a different species. 

---

The Origin of Life:

In 1936 a Soviet biochemist, Ivanovich Oparin, published a book "The Origin of Life on Earth."  In this book Oparin speculated that the Earth's early atmosphere was composed mostly of ammonia, hydrogen, and methane.  (New finding suggest this was not the case.  See below.)  These gases are composed of simple molecules.  Large amounts of these gases would have dissolved into the early oceans, and these would have received energy from sun light, lightning, and the Earth's internal heat.   This energy would have caused simple molecules to combine forming more complex molecules.  According to the theory, over millions of years these molecules formed the first living cells. 

In Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series he showed a chamber filled with these gases and water which were charged with electric sparks to simulate lightning.  After a half hour the chamber walls were coated with a brown goo of organic molecules.  Carl Sagan said "the stuff of life, it turns out, can be very easily made."

The building blocks of life can be made in a Lab.  The question is can these building blocks of life be randomly assembled into a working DNA molecule?

Also a number of Geologist have concluded that the early Earth's atmosphere contained oxygen.  Any free hydrogen in the Earth's atmosphere quickly escapes into outer space.  Further experiments conducted without hydrogen and having oxygen did not produce any synthesis of amino acids, thus the experiment shown on Cosmos has been abandoned by most scientist!

Is Random assembly of living cells possible?
Or is an Intelligence required for assembly of life?

I would like to make a comparison at this point.  Carl Sagan has the building blocks for life and is now expecting these molecules to randomly go together to form a living cell.  Now suppose I have all the parts for a complete watch in a box.  If I shake this box will the parts start going together to form a completed watch?  I can shake the box and some parts may come in contact but probably not the correct ones or at the correct alignment, and while I continue to shake this box these two parts will likely move apart while another two parts that do not belong together become entangled in a non functional manner.  After a few minutes I check and see that there is no resemblance to a watch.  I can continue this process for hours, weeks, months and years and see no progress.  A random process does not make an assembled watch, as the mathematical probabilities are infinitely small.

Now we open the box and allow a skilled watch maker who is familiar with this watch to start assembling the time piece.  He knows what the parts are for and how they are to be assembled.  After a few hours the parts are assembled as they should be and we now have a fully functioning watch.  If we look at a DNA molecule we see a very complex structure which is the blue print for a complex living organism with many parts.  This DNA molecule is much more complex then our watch parts.  Experts estimate that the Human Genome contains about 3 billion bases, and the Human Genome has about 30,000 Genes.¹  Is it possible that all these organic molecules randomly came together to form a DNA molecule or did they need an intelligent being with the "end in mind" to assemble them into a life form? 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things tend to go from functioning to non functioning states: from ordered states to less order.  A car which is not serviced will degenerate and stop running.  If a car is left to sit unattended, the battery will run down, the tires go flat and the body will start to rust, and the car becomes un-runable.  The random assembly of molecules to go from a non life state to a high order life state is directly contrary to the Chaos principle. 

British Cosmologist, Fred Hoyle who coined the term "Big Bang" said, "The idea that a living cell could have developed by chance, is evidently non-sense of the highest order."

Astronomer Hugh Ross states that for life to randomly form from inorganic matter would take many orders of magnitude longer time then the age of the Universe.  The 13.7 billion years (the age of the Universe) is insufficient time for life to randomly form.

Holes in the evidence for Evolution

Charles Darwin realized that proof of his theory rest in evidence showing that life forms evolve from one form to another.  Scientist have been searching for 150 years to find this evidence.  Many fossil records have been found around the world.  Some of it has been fabricated by desperate people trying to make a name for themselves.  Several times a few bone fragments have evolved into complete fossilized reconstruction by imaginative scientists.  Some of the fossil record seems to support the theory, but a rather glaring problem exist.   If life was to evolve from one simple life form then to another, one would expect to see this step by step process emerge in a gradual fashion. 

Evidence from Molecular Biology
Ann Coulter has said that, "Evolution is an Adult Fairy Tale."

It may be that the Darwin's theory needs to be revised to account for this difference from observation.  If one were to allow an intelligent design into the theory which caused this to happen then it might make sense, but the science would then be dealing with religion and philosophy, which are hard or impossible to put in a test tube.   But as with the birth of the universe, science can not tell us what caused the Big Bang to happen.  Even Carl Sagan said we enter into the area of philosophy and religion at the moment before creation.  see the Big Bang for more info.

True Science can only work with people who have open minds about the facts, who look at all the facts with out omitting the ones they don't like, and do not have preconceived ideas about how things should be.  Science has been promoting Evolution for nearly 150 years now, yet the majority of Americans do not accept it as valid, along with a growing number of scientist.  Possibly the reason is the facts do not support the theory. 

A new alternative theory of life on Earth is the "Intelligent Design" theory.   

---

The Secular World view - Darwinism promotes a naturalist materialistic view point of the universe in which there is no God, only Matter.  Life started from organic molecules naturally all by itself.  Early life forms evolved into more complex forms.  Man evolved from apes or monkeys, and we are no different then any other animal on the planet.  Survival of the Fittest means every man for himself.  This view point leads directly to greed, cheating, stealing and arrogance of the strong.  The strongest will rule our society.  This theology is portrayed on reality TV shows such as "Survivor".  

If you accept the theory of Evolution as fact then you will ultimately conclude that there is no need for a God that created us.  Then God becomes just a myth or superstition.  

---

The Christian World view - God created life, and God created Man in his own image, with a mind, heart and soul.  Man is set above the other animals because of these special traits that God gave us.  We are not to live as the animals by survival of the fittest, but live by Gods rules which include "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  Man is not to be greedy, cheat and steal in order to survive, but to care for the weak and needy.  All people count in the society and the people are allowed to choose their leaders.

The Christian will say, Evolution without sufficient evidence has become the secular doctrine which is taught in our classrooms as fact across the country, and can not be questioned, or the ACLU will sue your school.  This is not education but an intolerant indoctrination of a secular belief system.   The Secularist will say, Intelligent Design theory is not science but religion and can not be taught in our schools.