Evolution's Five Fundamental Assumptions--Are They Scientific or Philosopical? Part Five

Assumption Five, part one:  Transitional fossils demonstrate the fact of evolution. *

Of the five evolutionary assumptions we are examining, the fossil record is the only one that is empirical rather than predominately philosophical in nature. The reason is because fossils can be dug up, studied, compared, and analyzed. Evolution’s other four assumptions are almost entirely conjecture: (1) something (i.e. the universe) came from nothing, (2) order evolved from disorder, (3) life emerged from non-life, and (4) complex life evolved from an ancestral single-celled organism (see previous blogs). The only exception is big bang cosmology (part of assumption one), which has been demonstrated scientifically through astronomy and physics—and it points directly to intentional design!  

Most evolutionists (Darwinists in particular) claim the fossil record reveals primitive live forms gradually evolving, via genetic mutations and natural selection, into increasingly complex life form (e.g. fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, and reptiles to birds and mammals). This is the standard Darwinist party line—the scenario widely disseminated in high school and college text book, television documentaries, magazines, and other popular avenues used to broadcast naturalism as an ideology.

A few years ago, for example, National Geographic published an article titled, “Was Darwin Wrong? NO.”  The subtitle went on to claim that “The evidence for Evolution is overwhelming?” What kind of evidence did this lengthy article propose? The two most people are familiar with were (1) alleged modern examples of evolution in progress: selective breeding, bacteria and insect resistance, Darwin’s study of finches, experiments with fruit flies, and so on. And (2) the fossil record itself. But do these examples really support Darwinism? In my last three blog articles in my series of “evolution's five fundamental assumptions,” we’ll see that the answer is no. This article will focus on number one, alleged modern examples of evolution in progress. My next blog will examine the fossil record.

Microevolution, Yes! Macroevolution, No.

As the National Geographic article acknowledged, one of Darwinists’ most widely used arguments for naturalistic evolution is their claim that evolution can be observed taking place in nature and duplicated in a laboratory. Darwinists are simply wrong. The reason is because they confuse microevolution with macroevolution.

Microevolution is the ability of an organism to adapt to changing environmental conditions, which can result in minor physical differences among various kinds of animals. (In part three, I’ll explain how God designed animals for this very purpose.) For example, foxes in North America exhibit various colors and sizes. The Arctic Fox can be almost pure white in the winter, while the diminutive Kit Fox, which inhabits southwest deserts, is silver above and buff below—and not much larger than a house cat. 

Microevolution can be observed in nature and duplicated under controlled conditions, such as breeding dogs, livestock, vegetables, and ornamental plants. But microevolution has never been observed—naturally or artificially—to produce new varieties of plants or animals, and researches, especially experimenting with fruit flies, have attempted to do so for many years. All varieties of foxes are just foxes. All the hundred-plus species are roses are still roses (and by any other name). All three hundred-plus breeds of dogs are still just dogs—from tiny Chihuahuas to huge Great Danes. And all fruit flies, in spite of hundreds of mutated generations, are still just fruit flies—although grossly deformed and unable to survive.

Macroevolution, on the other hand, claims that through random mutations and natural selection animals will develop new organs and other body parts (or restructure existing organs) that become increasingly complex (or specialized). Eventually, over many, many millions of years, the accumulation of these evolving structures result in entirely new varieties of animals. Thus, within individual families—for example the cat family—there are extinct saber-toothed cats as well as modern lions, tigers, bobcats, and tabbies. And on a larger scale, fish evolved into amphibians, amphibians into reptiles, and reptiles into birds and mammals.

The reason Darwinists erroneously conclude that one type of animals can evolve into an entirely different kind of animal is because they mistakenly assume that microevolution is a stepping stone to macroevolution. In other words, the same mechanism that powers microevolution is extrapolated by Darwinists to power macroevolution. The fact is there is a fundamental and categorical difference between the two. In particular, microevolution, as we saw, is observable and repeatable and thus scientifically legitimate. Macroevolution is pure speculation. It’s not observable in nature or reproducible in a laboratory. There is no empirical evidence to demonstrate that macroevolution has ever—or could ever—happen.   

Contrary to the National Geographic article, and without exception, every worn-out example that Darwinists use to support macroevolution turns out to be examples of microevolution. Bacteria that has become resistance to antibodies is still bacteria. Cockroaches and mosquitos that have become resistant to pesticides are still roaches and mosquitos—not new species. Pepper moths on the British Isles, which have changed from a light to dark color due to pollution darkening the tree on which the alight, are still pepper moths. They did not become a different species of moth. And Darwin’s finches in Galapagos Islands, which exhibit cyclical changes in beak structure due to different available foods and weather conditions, are all still finches. They did not evolve into a new species of bird. None of these cases are examples of macroevolution—one kind of animal evolving into an entirely different kind of animal. Instead, all are perfect examples of microevolution!

The sad and deceptive fact is, because evolutionists are unable to give examples of genuine macroevolution, they rely on examples of microevolution and shamelessly tout them as macroevolution. Macroevolution is little more than a philosophical assumption; a ruse to support a rapidly failing naturalistic worldview that is unwilling to consider legitimate evidences for creation by intentional design.

So, macroevolution has never been observed in nature or created in a laboratory. But what about the fossil record itself? Can macroevolution be “observed” in the fossil record? This will be the subject of my next blog article.

*  This and the other blog articles in this series are copyrighted material and may not be reproduced electronically or in print. But feel free to link this blog to your own website, blog, or Facebook. I explore this and other evidence for creation by intentional design in my book The Christian Combat Manual (AMG Publishers). My sources are documented there.