By Matt Birchmeier, Ph.D.
Evolution and creation are topics that are a constant
source of argument and tension. Eight
decades have passed since the famous Scopes monkey trial featured arguments on
either side of the evolution-creation debate, and it seems that the debate is
still not settled. The Kansas state
school board made national headlines in 2000 for allowing local schools to
teach a science curriculum that included challenges to Darwinian evolution,
which opponents viewed as outright teaching of creation science. Some would stereotype the two sides of the
argument with scientists, armed with microscopes and DNA sequences, on one
side, and orthodox, uneducated Christians quoting from the book of Genesis on
the other. Although most scientists
that I have encountered agree with some form of a Darwinian model of evolution,
there are a significant number of scientists who adamantly disagree, on the
basis of the scientific evidence. I
hope to briefly explain just three of many objections to Darwinian evolution
that should demonstrate the scientific difficulties with adherence to an
evolutionary paradigm.
Before proceeding, it is useful to define some terms
as they will be used here. Evolution
is generally defined as the naturally occurring variation in living species and
natural selection toward the best adapted individuals, who pass their genetic
variations on to their offspring. This
theory is generally accredited to Charles Darwin (The Origin of Species, 1859). We often hear evolution used in a
non-scientific sense: the president’s foreign policy evolved during his
first year in office, or the university evolved into a cutting-edge
science center. These uses are not
“evolution” as the term is used here.
Biological evolution should be defined further, as microevolution
and macroevolution. Microevolution
is evolution within a species, in which some feature varies, such as
long-billed vs. short-billed hummingbirds (CBS online article). Another example of microevolution, in
domesticated species, is the variations in pigeons (chapter 1 of The Origin
of Species), which could be studied more easily than their wild
counterparts. Macroevolution, on
the other hand, refers evolution across species – for example, from an ape to a
person, or from a fish to a bird.
Microevolution is generally accepted by even the most skeptical
scientists, so it will not be further addressed here. Henceforth in this work, “evolution” will refer to
macroevolution.
The first problem with Darwinian evolution is the
difficulty of formation of the first living organism(s) from non-living
matter. Scientists have puzzled over
this question for decades. Because
Darwin did not have any concept of the complex inner workings of a cell –
nucleus, chloroplasts, Golgi apparatus, DNA, ribosomes, cell membrane, etc. –
he presumably did not have significant difficulty in assuming that the first
cell just came to be. However, over the
last several decades, the best efforts of scientists to simulate the conditions
by which simple elements have combined to create life have utterly failed. No scientist has yet claimed to be able to
assemble the components of a cell from simple molecules (like water, oxygen,
carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen, etc.).
In fact, the molecular-level explanation for the self-assembly of even a
single component of a cell, such as a molecule of chlorophyll (with some 130
atoms: Stryer, Biochemistry, p520), the photosynthetic reaction center
of a bacterium (molecular weight on the order of 100,000: Stryer, p532), or a
simple protein (assemblies of 50 to 2000 amino acids: Stryer, p22), from simple
components presents an impossible problem.
With certain laboratory conditions, scientists may make simple sugars,
amino acids, and the like from methane, nitrogen, water, and electricity
(pioneered by Miller), but self-assembly significantly beyond that is extremely
difficult to even propose, and even more difficult to prove. An important energetic difficulty
encountered by self-assembly was noted by Stryer, in his commonly used college
textbook: “the biosynthesis of peptide bonds requires an input of free energy,
whereas their hydrolysis is thermodynamically downhill.” (Biochemistry,
p. 22) The fact that biosynthesis of
peptide bonds is downhill indicates that, even if a few amino acids
spontaneously bonded together, they would tend to unravel rather than continue
building themselves into longer chains.
One may propose that a simpler, RNA-based life form preceded the present
DNA-based life form (Stryer, p113).
However, RNA, with molecular weights in the tens of thousands to
millions (Stryer, p 92), suffers from the same energetic and entropic tendency
to naturally unravel, so the same difficulty of self-assembly is present. Even with great efforts, we can’t even make a
copy of a living cell; yet, Darwinian evolution requires us to believe
that, in the absence of a designer, life sprang up by some unknown mechanism,
out of inert elements, in spite of the natural tendency – both energetically
(Stryer) and entropically (from data in Sandler) – for complex molecules to
break down to simpler molecules in the Earth’s environment.
The second objection to be considered here relates to
transitions from one species to another.
Darwin recognized that, for humans to evolve from simple one-celled
organisms or even from higher primates, a multitude of transitional forms would
be necessary. Yet he didn’t find fossil
evidence for these transition forms. He
wrote, in The Origin of Species:
“But, as by this theory [evolution] innumerable
transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in
countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” (p. 144)
David
Raup, curator of the Field Museum, said in 1979 (Quoted by Lee Strobel in The
Case for Faith):
“We
are now about one hundred and twenty years after Darwin and the knowledge of
the fossil record has been greatly expanded.
We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation
hasn’t changed much… we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions
than we had in Darwin’s time.”
The fossil record clearly
does not support the details of Darwinian evolution. The search for transition forms has certainly been ongoing for
decades, yet we still do not have clear evidence for transitional fossils, in
spite of the best efforts of innumerable geologists.
The third objection is that of irreducible
complexity. Darwin proposed that
all species evolved from simpler life forms, and that individual features
evolved as well. He wrote:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ
existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive,
slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.” –Charles
Darwin, Origin of Species (1859. p. 158)
Although
Darwin theorized that all living features could be formed by successive
variations, he did not have proof that these transformations actually occurred. He had no concept of molecular biology or of
the complexity of even the simplest cell.
He also recognized the difficulty of accepting an evolutionary origin of
highly refined organs when he noted
“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances
for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts
of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could
have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the
highest possible degree.” (ibid)
and
“…natural selection can act only by taking advantage
of slight successive variations; she can never take a leap, but must advance by
the shortest and slowest steps.” (ibid)
Darwin
contends that the many gradations in the complexity of the eyes of different
species yields evidence for the evolution of the eye over millions of
years. However, the function of the eye
is incredibly interdependent on a series of molecular transformations, as described
by Michael Behe in Darwin’s Black Box.
If one of these transformations fails, then the whole process falls
apart. Irreducible complexity,
then, refers to the impossible task of explaining how a highly interdependent
system evolved, one piece at a time.
Many other examples of irreducibly complex features exist, including the
bombardier beetle and the mechanism of blood clotting, which are also discussed
by Behe.
If we make a mechanical analogy to this “irreducible
complexity,” we might infer that a bicycle can evolve into a Model T Ford. However, to make a motorized device from a
non-motorized device, an entire drive train is required – including each
component, from pistons, cylinders, and fuel and air inputs, to fuel storage,
an ignition source, and an exhaust system.
Any one of these components, when added in “slight successive
variations,” offers no advantage over a bicycle without that added
component. A set of cylinders does not
make a bicycle faster or lighter or easier to maneuver, so it would not be
“selected” even if four cylinders randomly appeared on the handlebars.
Many other objections may be made to Darwinian
evolution. In fact, in The Origin of
Species, Darwin himself raised many others; the case of sterile worker ants
is but one example (p. 195 et seq.).
Another example, from modern biochemistry, is the issue of finding a
mutation that actually increases information or complexity (Spetner). Multiple more objections, however, may not
be of further use to the present discussion.
With any scientific theory, all relevant observations must be in
reasonably good agreement with the theory in order to support and validate the
theory. No amount of supporting
evidence can overcome a single, concrete contradiction to a theory; the theory
must be modified or tossed out. As
noted above, Darwin admitted that his theory of evolution would “absolutely
break down” if but one example of a non-evolved feature could be
demonstrated. From the preceding
discussion, the reader will certainly understand that a reasonable scientist
who examines the evidence will find major issues that pose grave difficulty to
the Darwinian theory of evolution.
Simply put, we need a better explanation.
The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, 1859, Bantam Books.
S. L. Miller, "A Production of Amino Acids under
Possible Primitive Earth Conditions," Science, Vol. 117, pp.
528-529 (1953).
Biochemistry, Lubert Stryer, 1988.
Chemical and Engineering
Thermodynamics, Stanley Sandler,
1989
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/tech/main551146.shtml
The Case for Faith, Lee Strobel, 2000.
Darwin’s Black Box, Michael J. Behe, 1996.
The Wedge of Truth, Phillip E. Johnson, 2000.
Darwin on Trial, Phillip E. Johnson, 1993.
Not by Chance! Shattering
the Modern Theory of Evolution, Lee
Spetner, 1997-1998.
Copyright © 2003 by Matthew Birchmeier. All rights reserved.