EVOLUTION: The Evidence Says No.
"Since natural selection, survival of the fittest, and micro-evolution are true, many people assume that macro-evolution is also true (Mason, Keith: 1996)."
This paper defines evolution, and presents empirical, tangible, and logical evidence showing why, contrary to popular belief, creation is actually more probable then evolution. The paper begins by defining anthropology, and speaking about how evolution is the backbone of anthropology. Then it talks about the two areas within evolution -- micro-evolution (a change within a species), and macro-evolution (a change from one species to another). It introduces the Bible and the theory of creation, and discusses how the creationists' theory and the evolutionists' theory are mutually exclusive. The paper spends a lot of time discussing the difference between a fact and a theory, for the author wants the reader to be aware that evolution is only a theory, not a fact. The young age of the earth, the geologic column, the origin of flight, and the fossil record are used to show why creation is more probable.
EVOLUTION: The Evidence Says No.
Anthropology is the study of human beings. It can be divided into cultural anthropology, archaeology, and physical anthropology. Cultural anthropology is the study of cultures and civilizations which are alive today; archaeology is the study of cultures and civilizations no longer alive; and physical anthropology is the study of ancient man and his development and evolution. They all are related in that one area of study borrows information from another area - for example archaeologists try and piece together ancient civilizations based on what they find in the soil, but how they interpret their findings is also dependent upon the knowledge of both physical and cultural anthropologists.
Just as archaeologists borrow from physical and cultural anthropologists, physical anthropologists borrow from cultural anthropologists and archaeologists, and cultural anthropologists borrow from physical anthropologists and archaeologists. However, regardless of which field of study one is involved in, the backbone of all three fields of study is the concept of evolution.
Since this paper is about evolution, it is imperative that the reader fully understand that there is a difference between macro-evolution, and micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is one distinct species turning into another distinct species (i.e. reptiles turning into birds, fish into amphibians, or apes into men, etc...). On the other hand, micro-evolution is evolution (or variation) within a species (e.g. giraffes evolving from having short necks to long necks -- the giraffes with the long necks are able to reach more food, so they survive, reproduce, and perpetuate more giraffes with long necks). While micro-evolution, survival of the fittest, natural selection, and variation are all true, there is a lot of evidence suggesting that macro-evolution is not true. For clarification purposes, from now on in this paper when I refer to the term evolution I mean macro-evolution, rather than micro-evolution or variation.
Students of the Bible may notice a dichotomy between what the Bible says and the theory of evolution. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created...." Most Bible scholars (hereafter called creationists) believe in a literal six days of creation, but the people who believe in evolution (hereafter called evolutionists) say that four to five billion years ago the world was formed after a star exploded, and that men and women are the product of billions of years of evolution. Are we the product of billions of years of evolution, or were we created by God in six days? They cannot both be true, so evidence supporting one must at the same time refute the other one, and vice versa. As we shall see in a moment, there is a lot of evidence refuting evolution and supporting creation.
Science, Facts and Theories Many people believe that evolution is a scientifically proven fact, and that creation is only a theory (not even a credible theory because it is only posed by a bunch of right wing Christian fanatics). This is simply not true. Evolution is not a proven fact, and certainly not a scientifically proven fact. Technically speaking, science can never "prove" anything as a "fact," rather it can only say with some degree of certainty if whatever is being examined is true or not. The scientific approach for examining facts and determining truth is done in five steps. 1st) An observation is made. 2nd) A hypothesis is formed. 3rd) Data is gathered. 4th) The hypothesis is tested in light of the data, and 5th) if the hypothesis passes the test, it becomes a theory. However, new data is constantly being discovered and the hypothesis re-tested. This data either supports the theory or disproves it, but never proves the theory as a fact (for future data cou d be gathered which disproves it). That is why science can never "prove" anything, only disprove things. If there is no way of testing or falsifying the hypothesis, the theory isn't accepted by the scientific community. George Galord Simpson, a notable scientist himself, has said, "It is inherent that statements which cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything, or at the very least they are not science." (Gish 1985: 12). Usually the event in question is repeated, and these five steps are used to determine its truthfulness. Events in history cannot be repeated, so they cannot be verified by the scientific method. This alone indicates that the theory of evolution, far from being a fact, is not even a valid scientific theory.
If the scientific method was the only way to prove things, you could not prove you went to work yesterday even though many facts suggest you did -- your work got done, your friends would remember, your boss would remember, and there is additional mileage on your car's odometer. For events in history, another method for establishing facts and determining truth must be used. This is what our courts of law use; it is called the Legal-historical method for proving things. This method of establishing truth is based upon the probability of an event happening after examining all the evidence found which does or does not support it (Willis 1993).
In this case, which has a greater degree of probability: creation or evolution? There is a lot of empirical, and tangible evidence showing that creation is more probable than evolution.
A Young Earth Tends To Contradict Evolution One thing showing that creation is more probable than evolution is the age of the earth itself. A vast amount of time is needed for evolution to be true. An evolutionist will tell you that the earth is four to five billion years old (Gish 1985: 47). Absolute dating methods such as carbon dating and potassium-argon dating are two methods evolutionists commonly use for dating the earth. However, these methods are not always accurate; evolutionists have dated rocks from Hawaiian lava flows (known to be only 200 years old) at three billion years old using the potassium-argon dating method. In addition, carbon dating methods have rated a snail shell at 2,300 years old, yet it was known to have died only days before the examination (Huse 1983: 29).
Not only are these dating methods inaccurate, but there are many other things which indicate a young earth. In his book The Collapse of Evolution, Scott Huse dedicates an entire chapter giving evidence for a young earth. For example, the earth's magnetic field is getting weaker every year. The earth's maximum age limit according to our magnetic field is 10,000 years; if the earth was as old as evolutionists say, we wouldn't have a magnetic field left. Another indicator of a young earth is natural gas. Natural gas is contained underground and is under pressure; the ground could only contain this gas for about 10,000 years. Besides that, it is generally believed that the earth and moon were formed at the same time. If this happened four to five billion years ago like the evolutionists say, then dust particles that come from space would have made the moon's ground 182 feet thick in dust alone (this was the reason for equipping the lunar shuttle with such huge landing pads), and this is not the case. Furthermore, because of the gravitational forces of the sun and moon, the earth's rotation is slowing down, and if it were as old as the evolutionists say, it would have stopped dead in space years ago. Besides this, the moon is receding from the earth every year, and according to the evolutionary theory, should be much farther away. (Huse 1983: 7-32).
There are many other scholarly men who also favor a young age for the earth (see Gish 1985: pages 19-20). One such person is Henry Morris. In The Scientific Case for Creation, Henry Morris uses the following methods to date the earth.
Decay of the earth's magnetic field...............10,000 years
Influx of radiocarbon into earth system...........10,000 years
Influx of uranium into the oceans via rivers......50,000 years
Influx of carbonate into the oceans..............100,000 years
Efflux of helium-4 into the atmosphere...........175,000 years
Accumulation of dust on the moon.................200,000 years
Leaching of chlorine from the continents.......1,000,000 years
Erosion of sediment from continents...........10,000,000 years
Morris uses a total of sixty five methods to date the earth. They range from 5,000 to ten million years, not billions of years like the evolutionists postulate (Morris 1977: 55-59).
The Geologic Column Does not Prove Evolution Because absolute dating methods vary so much, evolutionists often use index fossils and the geologic column to obtain their dates. The geologic column is the layering of the earth's surface -- an example of which can be seen by viewing the sides of the Grand Canyon. Usually the smaller and simpler fossils are found at the lower levels of the earth's surface. The evolutionists say that thousands of years elapsed between each layer and use it as a proof of evolution; they say the simpler life forms at the lower levels evolved into the more complex life forms (at the higher levels). But the problem is that some scientists say "thousands of years separate each layer in the geologic column, therefore it proves evolution," while other scientists say "evolution is true, therefore it proves that thousands of years must separate each layer in the geologic column" (Morris 1977: 37). This is circular reasoning, and does not prove anyt ing. Henry Morris suggests that a world-wide flood (recorded in Genesis) could do as well to explain why the smaller simpler life forms are found at the lower levels of the earth's crust. It was because they were less mobile, and may not have been able to move to higher elevations when the world was flooded (Morris 1977: 36-38). A flood would also explain why geologists find so many indications of sea life (including marine fossils) in dry land areas and on mountain tops.
The Origin of Flight Contradicts Evolution. Another thing which disproves evolution is the origin of flight. If evolution were a fact, then the origin of flight should provide an excellent case to prove its truthfulness, but it doesn't. Even though flight supposedly evolved separately in insects, reptiles, and mammals (e.g. bats), not one transitional fossil has ever been found between a flying creature and its alleged ancestor (Gish 1985: 103). The archaeopteryx has been used to show a link between reptiles and birds, because it seemed to exhibit characteristics of reptiles as well as characteristics of birds, but this could not be a transitional animal since fossils of modern birds and the archaeopteryx have been found together in the same soil. Yet according to the evolutionists' theory, the modern birds supposedly evolved from the Archaeopteryx, then the Archaeopteryx died out and became extinct (Gish 1985: 110). Furthermore, scientists have discovered fossils of flying beetles which are thousands of years old, yet they ook exactly the same as beetles do today. Other life forms also look exactly like their ancient counterparts (Gish 1985: 110).
Birds or any other flying creatures could not have evolved. Evolution could not have happened slowly, nor could it have happened rapidly. In fact, it could not have happened at all. Consider if you will, what good would it do to have arms or legs evolve into wings SLOWLY, before they were fully operational (good neither for running, grasping, or flying). If that is what happened, why doesn't the fossil record show any transitional life forms? But on the other hand, if the evolution happened SUDDENLY, how could the creature survive, and learn a new way to capture food, or even how to transport itself (Gish 1985: 38)?
The Fossil Record Itself Contradicts Evolution Another thing which shows that creation is more probable than evolution is the fossil record. If evolution were true, the fossil record should support it, but it best supports the creation theory. For example, squashed trilobite fossils have been found in human footprint fossils even though evolutionists say trilobites were extinct 230 million years before man came into existence (Huse 1983: 28). Furthermore, the fins of fish which supposedly evolved into the amphibians' legs are only embedded in the fish's flesh tissue, not in its skeletal structure, so they could not have become the animal's legs (Gish 1985: 73). In 1859, when Darwin came out with Origin of the Species, no transitional fossils had been found, but Darwin said that was because not enough fossils had yet been discovered. He said eventually transitional fossils would be discovered. However, after more than 150 years and 100 million fossils, not one t ansitional fossil has been discovered between a species and its alleged ancestor (Sunderland 1988: 9).
Evolutionists have been searching for transitional fossils between apes and men for over 150 years yet have never found them. The remains of the alleged half-man, half-ape PILTDOWN MAN were discovered in 1912 by an amateur fossilologist. He brought some bones and artifacts to the British Museum and said he had discovered them in a gravel pit near Piltdown, England. Anthropologists dated the remains at 500,000 years old, and concluded that it was a transitional fossil between apes and men. Everything was fine until 1956 when the bones were re-examined. When this was done, tests showed that the jawbone was from a 50 year old ape and some of the teeth had been filed down to fool the experts (Huse 1983: 100). Another alleged missing link was NEBRASKA MAN. Nebraska Man, discovered in 1925, was hailed by scientists as the oldest living man. He was completely reconstructed from one tooth. Later it was discovered that it was the tooth of an extinct pig (Huse 1983: 97). Another supposed mis ing link was LUCY. Lucy was an anthropoid discovered in Ethiopia by D. C. Johnson while he was listening to the Beatles song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds." She was supposed to be half ape and half man, yet walk upright. However, Lucy was an australopithecus: she had an opposable thumb-like big toe, shoulders and arms that indicated she spent a lot of time hanging in trees, and a totally ape-like scull. The bone that was used to determine that she walked upright, the femur, was crushed completely, so the evidence that she walked upright is speculative and inconclusive (Huse 1983: 102). Scientists and evolutionists seem to be looking so hard for a missing link that they are often seeing what is NOT there.
The Evolutionists Theory There is some ambiguity about the exact chain of human evolution, but almost all anthropologists agree human evolution began four or five million years ago with australopithecus, and ended about 10,000 years ago with modern man. Mark Weiss in Human Biology and Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective says australopithecus afarensis evolved into an australopithecus africanus, which evolved into an australopithecus boisei, which evolved into homo-habillis, which evolved into homo-erectus, which evolved into homo-sapiens, which evolved into neanderthal, which evolved into what he calls "anatomically-modern-humans." He says this evolution began four million years ago, and ended 10,000 years ago (Weiss 1985: 384).
Conclusion However, if we eliminate the time differential and classify some of the hominids as apes and some of them as human, then the variation between the humans of the past and the humans of the present can be explained through micro-evolution. Where the dividing line is I am not certain -- australopithecus was clearly an ape, and of course, anatomically-modern-humans are clearly human, but I believe all these hominids are in fact different species, some of which are fully human and some of which are fully ape.
In conclusion then, regardless of which theory one adheres to, both creation and evolution are only theories. And I believe I have shown that creation has a greater probability of being true. At the very least I have shown that there are a lot of holes in the evolutionary theory, and that it is far from being a proven established fact.
Gish, Duane. 1985 Evolution, The Challenge of the Fossil Record.
Creation-life Publishers. El Cajon, Ca.
Huse, Scott. 1983. The Collapse of Evolution. Baker Book House. Grand Rapids, Mich.
Morris, Henry.1977. The Scientific Case for Creation. Master Books.
San Diego, Ca.
Sunderland, Luther.1988. Darwin's Enigma. Master Books.; San Diego, Ca.
Weiss, Mark, and Alan Mann. 1985. Human Biology and Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective. Little, Brown and Company. Boston.
Willis, John.1993. Law Professor, San Diego City College. Personal
The author of this paper - Keith Mason - graduated with honors, has a Bachelor Degree in Information Systems, an Associate Degree in Computer Science, and an Associate Degree in Business Management. He has taken Anthropology classes, Geology classes, and has been a Christian for over ten years. He has read about, and researched both sides of the creation / evolution debate. His conclusion was presented in this paper.