LaVergne Church
of Christ | The Other
Side of Evolution - by
Jon Gary Williams
NOTE: THIS BOOK IS UNDER COPYRIGHT AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED (EXCEPT FOR BRIEF QUOTES) WITHOUT THE AUTHOR'S CONSENT.
This book can be ordered from: Williams Brothers Publishers, Box 35, LaVergne, TN 37086
Seventh Printing - 1996
DEDICATION - To my wife, Betty, who has been a wonderful source of encouragement through the years.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Do All Scientists Believe Evolution?
From the Field of Biology
From the Fields of Geology & Paleontology
From the Fields of Physics & Chemistry
From the Field of Medicine
The Origin of Life
The Origin of Protein
Second Law of Thermodynamics
Evolution Is Not Scientifically Grounded
Origin of One-Celled Animals
Gap Between Protozoa and Metazoa
Sudden Appearance of Fossils
Sudden Appearance of Flowering Plants
No Intermediate Forms
Unbridged Gaps Between Body Structures
Origin of Vertebrates
Necessity of Perfection in Animal Organs
Necessity of Perfection in Both Plants and Animals for
Cross-pollination
Necessity of Perfection in Animals for Colonial Living
No Nascent Organs
Testimony of the Endoparasites
Skeletal Armor
Photosynthesis
Metamorphosis
Some Animals Have Not Changed
"Extinct" Forms Still Living
Number of Chromosomes
Stability of Chromosomes
The Balance of Nature
From the Insect World
From the Protozoan World
Origin of Birds
Scales and Feathers
Cold and Warn Blood
Origin of Mammals
Odd Creatures
Evolution Built On Assumption
Evidence For Evolution Examined
Vestigial Organs
Comparative Anatomy
Mutations
The Geological Record
So-Called Horse Evolution
So-Called Bird Evolution
So-Called Human Evolution
Fruits And Tendencies Of Evolution
Why Christians Cannot Believe Evolution
Origins. The mere mention of the word evokes in many people deepseated emotions, because this is one issue on which almost every person has an opinion. From earliest times men have wanted to know about their origin, and the question, "Whence have I come?," has not been far from either their minds or their lips.
There are two fundamentally different, and diametrically opposed, explanations for the origin of the universe, the origin of life and the origin of varying types of life forms. One of these is the theory of evolution which affirms that everything is the result of naturalistic forces operating in a random fashion over aeons of time. The other view is creation which affirms that everything is the result of the purposeful acts of a supernatural Creator.
It is often the case that any discussion of origins stirs controversy. This controversy, however, is not necessarily something to be avoided. Frequently, people who have had the temerity to question have been rewarded by the fruits of their inquiry. In many instances, people have been caused for the first time to consider seriously (or reconsider) their own privately-held positions on these matters. They have sought answers, and have stood amazed at the evidence (or lack of it) that supports their belief system - when previously they have been somewhat complacent about the matter of their own beginnings. Oftentimes, as people have explored the matter of their ultimate origin, they have also discovered certain implications that affect them in the regular course of their lives on matters such as ethics, morals, and a host of other issues.
Jon Gary Williams has written an interesting and unique book that is an invaluable aid to those who wish to examine the controversy over origins, and one that I am happy to recommend. While the theory of evolution is sometimes presented as the only option open to "educated" people, this book helps the reader see that such a view is unwarranted, and that the actual facts tell quite a different story. I urge those interested in the matter of origins to consider carefully the arguments found within these pages. By the conclusion of the study, I believe the reader will come to realize that the evidence against evolution, and for creation, are incontrovertible, and that creation is the only logical model of origins supported by the actual facts of the case.
Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
Microbiologist, former professor, College of Veterinary Medicine
Texas A&M University
In practically every biology textbook used in our public school system and in our institutions of higher learning, the theory of organic evolution is presented as factual. Students are left with the distinct impression that no intelligent person denies the theory, and that to reject it is to place oneself outside the "educated circle."
Thousands of unsuspecting students have been swept up in the swift current of evolutionary thinking and are not aware that what they have been led to believe is not altogether sound. The textbooks and a growing number of teachers expose students to the so-called evidences for evolution, which on the surface seem very reasonable and are definitely impressive to young minds. But what the average young person does not know is that often all the evidence is not reported. Biology texts give only that infor-mation which seemingly supports the evolutionary concept, but neglect to mention the inconsistencies of the theory and the mountain of detrimental evidence. Such an approach is not only bias, it is also obviously unscientific.
Students have the right to hear all the facts. They have the right to be exposed to all available evidence. It is the purpose of this work to present a serious analysis of the evolution theory giving long overdue emphasis to the other side.
The word evolution comes to us from the Latin "evolutio" and simply means an unrolling or change. Under this definition there are a great many things which can be labeled evolution: a child growing into an adult, a seed developing into a tree, weather changing from summer to autumn, or day turning into night. These simple illustrations of change are in harmony with the fundamental meaning of the term.
This work, however, does not deal with the fundamental definition of evolution. Rather, it deals with a special use of the term sometimes known organic evolution or Darwinism. Evolution in this sense can be defined as:
The hypothesis that millions of years ago, lifeless matter acted upon by natural forces, gave origin to minute living organisms, which have since produced all extinct and living plants and animals, including man.
This special use of evolution, then, involves more than mere change, for it attempts to explain the origin and development of all life, and that, by purely natural means. It begins with the supposition that life began spontaneously or by accident! 1 It then endeavors to bridge the enormous gaps separating the various species, genera, families, orders, classes, phyla and even kingdoms.
Evolution is not a science, and to so classify it is a major mistake. Technically evolution is not even a theory, although this expression is commonly used. According to the scientific method a theory is an inference supported, at least to some degree, by observed facts.2 Evolution, as shall be pointed out in following chapters, is not so supported. What, then, is its proper classification? The most accurate description of evolution is hypothesis. A hypothesis is a broad assumption based on nothing more than subjective observation. It is an "educated guess."3 And this is precisely what is involved in the evolutionary concept of life. For fear of being tedious, however, throughout this following pages the more popular term, theory, will be used.
Contrary to popular opinion and impressions left by modern evolu-tionists, the idea of evolution is not of recent origin. The theory did not have its beginning with Charles Darwin, nor is it, as some suggest, a result of the advanced knowledge of our scientific age.
For well over 2000 years men have suggested various forms of evolution which are akin to the modern theory. As far back as 588 B.C. Thales presented his obscure views of an evolving scale of life. Others of ancient Grecian times were: Anaximander, 570 B.C.; Empedocles, 455 B.C.; Democritus, 420 B.C.; and Strato, 288 B.C. But during the centuries following, while being advanced by a few individuals, the concept of evolution was never taken very seriously by most. And it was never given any "scientific" connotation until the nineteenth century when such men as Huxley, Spencer, Lamarck and Darwin pursued the issue further. But even then these men did little more than revive some of the ancient Greek ideas. However, by the time of Darwin and his contemporaries it seemed the time was right for this kind of thinking.
The dark ages which for so long had kept people in religious, social and scientific ignorance were swiftly passing. There was a "spirit of extensive and free inquiry as opposed to the authoritative methods of the Catholic church."1 One of the evil effects of this darkened period was that the ironclad hand of Catholicism had become synonymous with religion and the Bible, and it was this distorted view of religion against which many had been rebelling. Men were thinking for themselves, reaching out for something to which they could hold. Study and research were expanding in every direction and by the late 18th century a great many changes had taken place. The so-called "age of reason" had dawned! During this time some became carried away with intellectualism and natural philosophy. Such men were prone to be skeptical of almost anything religiously oriented, seeking to satisfy their minds elsewhere. It was in the midst of this atmosphere of thought that the modern concept of evolution emerged.
Charles Darwin, a naturalist of the nineteenth century, is considered the real turning point in evolutionary thinking. He was raised to believe in God and for a time even studied for the ministry. However, through the years Darwin acquired a deep interest in natural science. As his interest in this grew concern for religion and the Bible began to fade. Gradually he began to doubt the Bible and Christianity and finally found himself to be totally agnostic. He said: "Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress."2 However, it was not his study of evolution that caused this change. Rather, disbelief preceded the formation of his theory. Consequently he needed something to fill the void left by this new philosophy. Thus, by around the middle of the nineteenth century Darwin's thinking began to shift. Surburg points out that by this time:
A great deal of data on animals and plants had accumulated as well as information on the geological structure of the earth. This information seemed to make possible the production of a reasonable and comprehensive theory of organic evolution.3
Darwin drew heavily on this material and began to formulate his own evolutionary views. In 1859 his work entitled The Origin of Species was published, in which he attempted to expound his position. But even before the book went to press Darwin admitted that it contained many obscure ideas. It was with the publication of this book, however, that the theory began to receive wider acclaim, though some of the greatest minds of the day rejected it. Of the book Dr. Adam Sedgwick, Darwin's professor, said:
I have read your book with more pain than pleasure, Parts of it I admire greatly, parts I laughed at until my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous."4
To some evolution appeared to be a reasonable alternative to special creation. It captured the imagination and as time passed many were swept up in this new philosophy. In the words of Dr. Dodson the period following Darwin was:
...characterized by extreme enthusiasm, together with an uncritical acceptance of whatever data were claimed to support Darwinism. Negative evidence was given little weight, while absurd extremes of interpretations, in order to make observed facts fit Darwinian theory, were quite common.5
The evolution theory became more of a religion than a science and the bulk of its dogma came to be accepted on faith. When examining evolution it is well to keep in mind that it has always been an unstable and changing theory. As Rusch points out: "Since the days of Darwin his theory has undergone a complex development as well as a rather severe overhauling."6 Even Darwin himself lost faith in his early position of natural selection.7
There has always been wide disagreement among evolutionists. Several different and contradictory explanations for a mechanism of evolution have been offered. For example: pangenesis - transmission of acquired characteristics from one generation to the next; mutations - either slow genetic changes or rapid genetic changes passed on to successive generations. In view of the divergence of opinion over this most fundamental requirement of evolution it is next to unbelievable that the theory has, in many circles, come to be regarded as factual. Of course, many men of science confess that evolution is unproven. But despite this it continues to dominate most areas of scientific thought.
It is sometimes asked: "Why do so many educated people believe in evolution?" Dr. Henry Morris, who was once an evolutionist him-self, gives this concise and revealing answer:
The writer is convinced, from having discussed the subject with hundreds of people, that the main reason most educated people believe in evolution is simply because they have been told that most educated people believe in evolution. Very rarely is such a person able to do more than repeat a few stock "evidences for evolution," and almost never has he given any really serious consideration to the question of their real implication.1
From all outward appearance it would appear that the majority of educated people tend to believe in some kind of evolution. However, as Dr. Morris implies, this widespread acceptance is not altogether based objective thinking. In their book, Why Scientists Accept Evolution, Drs. R.T. Clark and James D. Bales say:
Evolution is taken for granted today and thus it is uncritically accepted by scientists as well as by laymen. It is accepted by them today because it was already accepted by others who went before them and under whose direction they obtained their education.2
Again, they note:
So widely accepted is the doctrine of evolution that it is received by each oncoming generation for the simple reason that each generation finds that evolution is a part of the scientific world outlook in which it is reared.3
There is a strong trend in most educated circles to lean toward evo-lution even if one does not actually believe it. Clark and Bales mention further that "the tendency to conformity is so great that...there are many people who will call white black in order to be in step with the times."4
Dr. Thomas Dwight observes:
"How very few of the leaders in the field of science dare to tell the truth as to the state of their own minds! How many feel themselves forced in public to do lip service to a cult that they do not believe in!"5
Also, belief in evolution has apparently come about due to
an anti-religious, anti-Biblical bias. This does not mean that
all evolutionists hold to this bias; no doubt some have honestly
endeavored to discover answers to questions about life without
reflecting on God or the Bible. And, yet, among the vast majority
of evolutionists there is an under-
tone of resentment toward the Bible, especially the Biblical
account of creation.
As far back as the days of Darwin this trend was apparent. T.H. Huxley, Darwin's peer, said Darwin's The Origin of Species was "anti-genesis."6 The ardent evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith declared:
"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable."7
Again, Huxley says:
"It is clear that the doctrine of evolution is directly antagonistic to that of creation. Evolution, if consistently accepted, makes it impossible to believe the Bible."8
The third annual report of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism, strong backers of evolution, said:
"Evolution is atheism."9
Dr. L.T. More of the University of Cincinnati said:
"Our faith in the idea of evolution depends on our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation."10
Dr. Theodore Schwarze of New York University, pointedly states that evolution is
"accepted by scholars and scientists because it categorically denies the word of God, which they hate."11
In his work, Evolution and the New Inquisition, Bales states:
If one is acquainted with the background of Darwin and other evolutionists in the nineteenth century, he will realize that they accepted evolution not because scientific evidence proved it, but because they had rejected the idea of creation by God, and had determined that all must be explained naturally."12
Creation is the only alternative to evolution, and since supporters of the theory view the Biblical narrative as untenable, they are compelled to turn to evolution.
DO ALL SCIENTISTS BELIEVE EVOLUTION?
While many scientists for one reason or other accept evolution, what of others who seriously question it or reject it altogether? To young evolutionists it comes as a shock to learn that: (1) many evolutionists admit grave defects in the theory; (2) many supporters of evolution admit the theory cannot be proved; (3) many scientists stand firmly against the theory. What, exactly, have some prominent men of science had to say about evolution?
Dr. Relis Brown admits: "The piecing together of the evolution story is comparable to the reconstruction of an atom-bombed metro-politan telephone exchange by a child who has only seen a few telephone receivers."1 Dr. G.K. Hebbert, British lepidopterist, says: "The evidence of fossils very definitely favors creation and not the evolution theory. The evolution theory bristles with anatomical and bio-chemical differences."2 Dr. Austin Clark of the United States National Museum, says:
There is not the slightest evidence that any of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex, related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation.3
Dr. Kenneth Cooper of the University of Rochester says:
"As is so often the case of writings of our modern evolutionists, natural selection as a cause is deduced from effect, and the resulting arguments and conclusions are, of course, unconvincing."4
Dr. Albert Fleishmann of Erlangen University observes:
The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts."5
Dr. Ambrose Fleming, past president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, plainly stated:
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."6
Drummond, the great English scientist, confessed:
"I can live no longer on uncertainties. I an going back to my faith in the word of God."7
Dr. Harold Blum in his work, Time's Arrow and Evolution, stated:
"The riddle seems to be: How, when no life existed, did substances come into being which today are absolutely essential to living systems yet which can only be formed by those systems?"8
Dr. H.J. Fuller of the University of Illinois says:
The evidence of those who would explain life's origin on the basis of the accidental combination of suitable chemical elements is no more tangible than that of those people who place their faith in Divine Creation as the explanation of the development of life. Obviously, the latter have as much justification for their belief as do the former.9
FROM THE FIELDS OF GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY
Dr. Theodore Schwarze boldly states:
"The doctrine of evolution would be an insult to anyone's intelligence."10
British paleontologist Dr. L.M. Davies says:
"The most extraordinary nonsense is sometimes talked in support of evolution...it has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as "Let us assume" or "We may well suppose," etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone...It was Darwin's habit of confusing the provable with the unprovable which constituted to my mind his unforgivable offense against science.11
Dr. J.W. Dawson, Canadian geologist, says:
The evolution doctrine itself is one of the strangest phenomena of humanity. It is a system destitute of any shadow of proof, and supported merely by vague analogies and figures of speech and by the arbitrary and artificial coherence of its parts.12
Dr. N.S. Shaler of Harvard University says:
It begins to be quite evident that the Darwinian hypothesis is still essentially unverified...It is not yet proven that a single species of the two or three million now inhabiting the earth has been established solely or mainly by the operation of natural selection.13
Dr. H.W. Conn states:
"Nothing has been positively proved as to the question at issue. From its very nature, evolution is beyond proof."14 Dr. Paul Lemoine, French geologist who once supported the evolution theory, declared: "The theory of evolution is impossible."15
FROM THE FIELDS OF PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY
Dr. R.E.D. Clark points out:
"It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that if in past ages complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous. For this reason the doctrine of evolution can never legitimately form a part of naturalistic philosophy..."16
Dr. Edmund Whittaker of the University of Edinburgh notes:
"Modern physical theory has to adapt itself to the concept of creation."17 Whittaker's conclusion, as has been felt by many physicists and chemists, is based on studies of the laws of thermodynamics which will be discussed in a later chapter.
British scientist John Tyndall writes:
There ought to be a clear distinction between science in a state of hypothesis and science in a state of fact; and inasmuch as it is still in its hypothetical stage, the ban of exclusion ought to fall upon the theory of evolution. I agree with Virchow that the proofs of it are still wanting, that the failures have been lamentable, and that the doctrine has been utterly discredited.18
Dr. Ferenco Kiss, Dean of the Medical Faculty, University of Budapest, says:
"All the European teachers know the theory of evolution, but they have never made it a foundation for teaching or research. We also understand why it is necessary for the evolutionists, in order to maintain their theory, to collect similarities and to neglect the numerous differences."19
Dr. McNair Wilson, former editor of the Oxford Medical Publi-cations, states:
"Increase of knowledge about biology has tended to emphasize the extreme rigidity of type, and, more and more to discount the idea of transmutation from one type to another - the essential basis of Darwinism."20
Again from Dr. Wilson:
"Modern medicine and surgery are founded on the truth enunciated by Pasteur, that life proceeds only from life and only from life of the same kind and type."21
Dr. Malcolm Dixon, Biochemist of the University of Cambridge, points out:
"All life depends on enzymes. Enzymes are proteins. Proteins are made only from enzymes, and it is extremely difficult to see how they could be formed in any other way. If then enzymes are made only by enzymes, how did the first enzyme appear? I have stated this rather crudely, but it is a real difficulty, and there others which are more formidable."22
And last, from the German pathologist, Dr. Rudolf Virchow:
"It is all nonsense. It cannot be proved by science that man descended from the ape or any other animal. Since the announcement of the theory, all real scientific knowledge has proceeded in the opposite direction."23
