The Scientific Truth About Evolution
in Webster’s Dictionary (New 20th Century Edition, Standard Publishing, 1956) as “knowledge, comprehension, or understanding of the truth on any subject.” The New Webster’s Dictionary (1992 ed.) defines science as “the facts pertaining to any department of mind or matter in their due connections.” So science then by definition is a search for truth!
Today naturalistic philosophy has invaded the realm of science. Darwinian evolution is defined as science itself, while alternatives are dismissed outright as “religion”. This makes it impossible to debate whether the theory is true. Science however must keep open the possibility of other ideas or the search for truth is stifled. If laboratory science can find the mechanism by which a single species can change by natural processes into different forms such as birds, frogs, fish, or a monkey, from a single common ancestor, then evolution will be proven truth. If laboratory science cannot find the mechanism, and if common ancestors and transitional links cannot be found, or if such a mechanism proves impossible then Darwinian evolution fails as an empirical theory.
The Citadel of Science
The Psalmist David wrote “The heavens declare the Glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork…and there is no speech nor language where there voice is not heard” (Psalm 19:1, 3). The Bible says when we look into the heavens we see a self evident truth, as obvious as if we could hear it in words, available to people of every language, to every part of the earth. That simple evident truth is that all that we see is an effect that demands a great supernatural cause. The stars, the sun, the moon, and the earth could not come about from nothing. That is irrational. It also defies the most important law of science. When viewed objectively we see two complimentary truths:
The Odds of Chance
Proteins are complex molecules composed of amino acids and necessary for the chemical processes that occur in living organisms. Fred Hoyle, one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, and his colleague Chandra Wickramasinghe calculated the odds that all of the functional proteins necessary for life might form in one place by random event. The calculation is 10(40000). Since there are only 10(80) subatomic particles in the entire visible universe, the physicists concluded that s this was “an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup!” (Evolution from Space, Fred Hoyle. JM Dent and Sons, London, 1981.)
Since the current theory of Neo-Darwinism pushes the spontaneous generation of life to the protein molecule an in depth examination of the facts is necessary to determine its probability. Consider the following illustration of a protein molecule give by Dr. Robert Gange (Origins and Destiny, Gange. World Books. Waco, Tx. 1986):
"Picture a train with a string of railroad cars each connected to the next. There are cattle cars, petroleum cars, coal cars, lumber cars, and so on. This gives us a rough idea of what a protein molecule looks like under an electron microscope—a string of railroad cars called amino acids.
If we picture two sets of tracks side by side with two kinds of trains composed of 574 cars in all we have a good picture of hemoglobin, a protein that carries oxygen through your body. Iron is located in hemoglobin in a special way that allows the molecule to carry oxygen more efficiently than anything else known. Were it not for hemoglobin, our heart would have to pump fifty thousand gallons of blood a day just to keep us alive (five times the pressure of the atmosphere).
Protein is made up of building blocks called amino acids. We can picture them as cars on our train. We need a total of 574 railroad cars, each car being an amino acid. There are 20 types of amino acids in our body. In our first car we can select from twenty different kinds of amino acids. In designing our second car, we must also select from twenty and so on. With twenty selections for each of our first two cars on our train we have 20 x 20 ways of choosing our first two cars. That means we can assemble our first 2 cars in 400 possible combinations. If we were to make a single train of only 2 cars we could choose from eight thousand combinations.
Hemoglobin contains two trains totaling 574 cars, each car selecting from 20 different kinds of amino acids. Isaac Asimov estimates that the number of possible combinations in hemoglobin is 135 followed by 165 zeroes. This is a number larger than all of the atoms estimated to be in the entire universe!!(The Genetic Code. Isaac Asimov. New American Library, NY.NY. 1962. pg. 92) Yet despite this only one combination is correct for carrying more oxygen efficiently in your body.
Trying to understand such odds staggers the imagination. The odds that natural selection could create the perfect combination of amino acids, to create useful protein molecules for the advancement of life, simply defy logic.
The idea that amino acids could even arise from pre-biotic soup to form the chemical basis for life came from the Miller-Ulney experiment. Science is now begginning to realize the conclusions for the evolutionary model are false. For an in-depth discussion of the Miller-Ulney experiment see the following link: The Origin of Life
The Fossil Record
Each of the divisions of the biological world (kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders) conforms to a basic structural plan, with very few intermediate types. Where are the links between these intermediate groups? The absence of transitional intermediates is troubling to the theory of gradualistic evolution. Darwin himself admitted his theory implied that “the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and instinct species, must have been conceivably great” (Origin of Species, Penguin Library Edition, 1982.)
Darwin had great hopes for his theory because in 1859 only a small portion of the fossil record had been uncovered. The fossil record is one place where Darwin’s theory of naturalistic evolution could be put to the test. One might then suppose that geologists would be continually uncovering fossil evidence of transitional forms. Clearly such is not the case. Professor N. Heribert-Nillson of Lund University, Sweden, who had studied Evolution for over 40 years, remarked, “It is not even possible to make a caricature of evolution out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained by the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled” (“Was Darwin Wrong?” Francis Hitchings, Life Magazine, Vol. 5, No. 4, April 1982, pg 48-52).
Paleontologists now know the following to be true:
Colin Patterson, senior Paleontologist, at the British Natural History Museum, is an expert on the fossil record. At a lecture he gave to his academic peers, he asked the following: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true? I tried the question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago and all I got there was silence for a very long time and eventually one person said, “I do know one thing – it ought not be taught in High School” (Darwin on Trial pg 9-10)
In short, if evolution means the gradual change of one kind of organism into another kind, the outstanding characteristic of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution. Gradualistic evolution has failed the test of time in the fossil record.
Irreducible Complexity
What is an irreducibly complex system? Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry, Lehigh University, provides the following explanations (Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Free Press NY 1996).
The first step to determine irreducible complexity is to specify both the function of the system and all of the components. The second step in determining if a system is irreducibly complex is to ask if all the components are required for the system to function.
One mechanical example of an irreducibly complex system is a simple common mousetrap. The function of the mousetrap is to immobilize a mouse. The basic household mousetrap consists of a number of parts:
Now in order to determine of the system is irreducibly complex we must ask if all the components are required for the function? The answer is clearly yes. If one of the parts was missing from the mousetrap it certainly would not work. If the wooden base were gone there would be no platform to attach the other components. If the hammer were missing the mouse could run right over the platform without ever becoming pinned to the wooden base. If there were no spring, the hammer and the platform would dangle loosely. If there were no catch or metal holding bar then the spring would snap the hammer shut as soon as you let go of it.
To feel the force of the conclusion that a system is irreducibly complex and therefore has no functional precursors we need to distinguish between a “physical” precursor, and a “conceptual” precursor. The mousetrap we have described is not the only system that can immobilize a mouse. There is a glue trap, another type is the little box with a stick for a trip. These are not physical precursors to the standard mousetrap, however, since they cannot be transformed step by Darwinian step, into a trap with a base, hammer, catch, and holding bar.
Modern biochemistry has shown that the cell is operated by molecular machines. These machines are not made of metal or plastic but are made up primarily of proteins. There are many molecular organisms that are irreducibly complex systems. This simply means that they are made up of many parts that interact in complex ways, and that all of the parts are needed for the organism to work. Any single part has no useful function unless all the other parts are present. There is no pathway or functional intermediate states by which a Darwinian process could build such a tiny system.
One such machine is the cilium. A cilium is a molecular “swimming” system. It is a structure that looks like a hair but beats like a whip. If a cell with a cilium is free to move about in a liquid, the cilium moves the cell like the oars move a boat. If the cell is stuck in the middle of a sheet of other cells, the beating cilium moves liquid over the surface of the stationary cell. Nature uses cilium for both jobs. For example, sperm use cilia to swim. In contrast, the stationary cells that line the respiratory tract each have hundreds of cilia. The large number of cilia beat in synchrony, much like the oars on a Roman galley ship, to expulse mucus from the throat.
In order to gain a better understanding of the irreducible complexity of a “swimming” system like a cilium let’s first examine a mechanical example such as a child’s wind up toy fish. A toy fish is made up of a tail that serves as a paddle, the wound spring is the energy source, and a connecting rod transmits the energy. If one of the components is missing; then the toy fish goes nowhere. Like a mousetrap without a spring, a swimming system without a paddle, motor, and connector is fatally incomplete. Remove one of the parts and the whole system grinds to a halt.
A thorough biochemical analyses shows that a cilium contains over two hundred different kinds of proteins! The actual complexity of cilium is far greater than anything Darwin could ever have imagined. As a swimming system it requires numerous parts that are essential for its function:
The complexity of the cilium is inherit in the task itself. Just as a mousetrap does not work unless all of its constituent parts are present, ciliary motion does not work in the absence of microtubules, connectors, and motors. Therefore we can conclude that cilium is irreducibly complex and could not have arrived in a step-by-step Darwinian process.
There are many such examples of irreducibly complex systems that have no explanation by means of natural selection such as Flagellum, DNA replication, AMP synthesis, electron transport, vesicular transport, telomere synthesis, photosynthesis, transcription regulation, and more. Even though we are told that all biology must be seen thought the lens of evolution, no scientist, no Nobel Prize winner, NO ONE has ever produced a molecular model to account for the gradual evolution of these extraordinary machines.
Lets look at one more example to drive the point home. Consider the biochemical complexity of a cascade. A cascade is a system where one component activates another, which activates a third part and so on. One such cascade can be seen in the apparent simplicity of blood clotting. The blood clotting procedure is actually extremely complex. In order to feel the full weight of what this means a detailed explanation is provided:
“ A protein called Stuart factor cleaves to prothrombin, turning it into active thrombin that can cleave fibrinogen to fibrin to form the blood clot. Unfortunately, if Stuart factor, prothrombrin, and fibrinogen were the only proteins then Stuart factor would rapidly trigger the cascade, congealing all of the blood of the organism (it would die). Another protein, called accelerin, is needed to increase the activity of Stuart factor, to keep the person from bleeding to death. Unfortunately, accelerin only exists in an active form called proaccelerin. And what activates it? Thrombin. But thrombin is further down the cascade than proaccelerin. So thrombin regulating the production of accelerin is like having grand-daughter regulate the production of grand-mother.” How could this happen in a step by step Darwinian process of “numerous, successive, slight, modifications?” Every step is needed for the process to function.
The entire blood-clotting cascade depends critically on the timing and speed at which different chemical reactions occur. One would die if thrombin activated proconvertin at the wrong time; one would bleed to death if proaccelerin were activated to slowly. An organism would fade into history if thrombin activated protein c much faster than it activated proaccelerin. The formation, limitation, strengthening, and removal of a blood clot is an integrated biological system, and problems with single components can cause the system to fail.
Because of the nature of a cascade, a new protein appearing by chance natural selection would have to regulated. From the beginning, a new step would require both a proenzyme and also an activating enzyme at the correct time and place. Since each step requires several parts, not only is the entire blood clotting system irreducibly complex, but so is each step in the pathway!
This casts a dark cloud on the theory of evolution. Natural selection, the engine of evolution, only works if there is something to select that is useful right now, not in the future, but now. Blind chance cannot see ahead. A gene for protein might be duplicated by a random mutation, but it does not just “happen” to also have sophisticated new properties. For example, if Stuart factor is introduced in one step, but its activator (TPA) doesn’t appear until two steps later in the chemical pathway, then the protein being introduced with nothing to do would be eliminated by natural selection!
Science has no explanation on how an irreducibly complex system biological organism could come about by chance. Evolutionary theorists can only use some vague A-B-C-D model to describe how such an organism could come about. Numerous biology textbooks use such models. One such example was used in “Molecular Biology of the Cell”, a popular textbook written by Nobel laureate James Watson. We are told in a figure that the primordial cell: “is provided with a supply of related substances (A, B, C, D) produced by prebiotic synthesis. One of these substances D, is metabolically useful. As the cell exhausts the supply of D, a selective advantage is obtained by the evolution of the new enzyme that is able to produce D from the closely related substance.”
Yes, everyone agrees that, if you run out of D, the thing to do is just make it from C. And of course, it should be a simple thing to convert B from C, after all, they’re right next to each other in the alphabet. And where do we get A, B and the rest? From the primordial alphabet soup of course!
The problem is this same model has been used since 1945 when it was introduced by Horowitz. This was before biochemists uncovered the complexity that lies within the cell in the 1960’s. The fact is that no one ever puts real chemical names on their mythical letters in their A-B-C-D story. In the textbook mentioned above, the cartoon explanations are not developed further, even though the book is used to teach PhD students who could easily follow detailed explanations. It is much more difficult to believe when one puts real chemical names in place of their imaginary letters. It is very difficult to believe there was much adenylosuccinate to be converted to AMP. And it is even harder to imagine that carcoxyaminoimidazole ribotide was sitting around waiting to be converted to 5-aminoimadazole-4-(N-succinylocarboxamide) ribotide. It is difficult to believe when you put real names on the chemicals, then you have to come up the real chemical solutions that could make them, No one has ever done that!
Science simply has no explanation as to how a biological irreducibly complex system could come about by natural selection. All they can do is come up with some ambiguous concept without any explanations. Evolutionary theorists like the popular Richard Dawkins, one of the biggest exponents of Darwinism, have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point they can almost always spin a story to get any biological structure you wish. Science, however, cannot ultimately ignore the details, and at the molecular level “details” become critical. If a molecular nut or bolt is missing, then the whole system will crash. The very serious problem for Darwinian evolution is that cells would have no reason to develop regulatory mechanisms before the appearance of a new catalyst. The appearance of a new, unregulated pathway, far from being a boon, would look like a genetic disease to the organism.
The impotence of Darwinian theory in accounting for the molecular basis of life is evident not only from the analyses presented here, but also from the complete absence in the professional scientific literature of any detailed models by which complex biological systems could have been produced. In the face of the enormous complexity that biochemistry has uncovered in the cell, the scientific community is lost.
Intelligent Design
George C. Williams, an evolutionist, said the following in a 1995 interview (The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution, ed. John Brockman NY. Simon and Schuster, 1995.) “The gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the medium, its not the message. Maintaining this distinction between the medium and the message is absolutely indispensable to clarity of thought about evolution.” Think of a book. The message comes from an author the ink and the paper are only the medium by which it is delivered. Similarly, the information written in DNA is not the product of DNA. Where did the information come from? Who or what was the author?
Imagine you are hosting some friends and are playing a game of Scrabble. When the game ends, you leave the room for a break. You come back to find the Scrabble letters lying in the box, some face up, and some face down. You think nothing of it until you notice the letters facing up read, “Buy a pizza you cheapskate.” In this instance you immediately infer design, not even bothering to consider that the wind, or an earthquake, or your pet cat might have fortuitously turned over the right letters. You infer design, because a number of separate components (the letters) are ordered to accomplish a purpose (the message) that none of the components could do by itself.
Imagine a room in which a body lies crushed, flat as a pancake. A dozen detectives crawl around, examining the floor with magnifying glasses for the identity of the perpetrator. In the middle of the room, next to the body, stands a large gray elephant. The detectives carefully avoid bumping into the pachyderm’s legs as they crawl, and never even glance at it. Over time the detectives get frustrated with their lack of progress but resolutely press on. You see the textbooks say detectives must “get their man,” so they never consider elephants. There is an elephant in a room full of scientists trying to explain the development of life. The elephant is labeled “intelligent design.” To a person who does not feel obligated to restrict his research to unintelligible clauses, the straightforward conclusion is that biochemical systems were designed.
What is design? Design is the purposeful arrangement of parts. Design is evident when a number of separate, interacting components are ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond their individual components. Irreducibly complex systems could not come about without design. The only way a cell could make a flagellum is if the structure were already coded in its DNA. Behe shows clearly that many biochemical systems cannot be built by natural selection working on mutations: no direct gradual route exists to these irreducibly complex systems, and the laws of chemistry work strongly against the undirected development of the biochemical systems that make molecules such as AMP.
Biochemistry has done exactly what it was asked to do by the scientific community. It has unlocked the secrets of the cell. The result of these efforts to investigate the cell – to investigate life at the molecular level – is a loud, clear, piercing cry of “DESIGN!” The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. But the scientific community won’t receive it. Why?
Harvard geneticist and Marxist Richard Lewontin, one of the most influential biologists in the world has written (The New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997 pg. 28 31): “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
In other words, evolution is not a fact, it’s a philosophy. The materialism comes first “a priori,” and the evidence is interpreted in the light of that unchallengeable philosophical commitment. If the evidence seems to go against that philosophy, then so much for the evidence! To a materialist, it is better to put up with bad science than to allow the Divine Foot in the door!
I am reminded of the scripture in Romans chapter 1 versus 18-22, 25. (NIV)