The Faith of Evolution and Distortions of Biblical HistoryThe Faith of Evolution And Distortions of Biblical History
Archive of Comments and Discussions - Questions and Answers From All-Creatures.org

By C. L. Troupe

I have never believed in evolution. Even during my post-adolescent, pseudo-intellectual "rebellious," period - when I sometimes thought of myself as an atheist (or an agnostic if I were feeling exceptionally patronizing and smug). I could never understand why the scientific community could have such divergent views on a subject that was being taught not as just a theory, but as if it were a universally accepted fact.

I am not claiming to be an expert on this, or any other subject. I am claiming to be an educated, well read, thinking human being (of at least average intelligence), refusing to accept as an established fact, an almost limitless number of variations of a concept that has absolutely no evidence to support it, and therefore cannot be accepted as "scientific."

It is true that creation has never been observed. It cannot be measured, or demonstrated in a laboratory, and therefore is outside the realm of true, imperical science. But the same is true of evolution. No one has ever seen it happen. It cannot be measured, or demonstrated in a laboratory, and it is also outside the realm of science.

The only "witness" to the origin of species is the fossil record. The big bone of contention between creationism and evolution (as far as I am concerned), is the total lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Most lay people believe what they are told and therefore will argue that there are many, and even "countless thousands" of transitional forms in the fossil record. After all, they have actually seen the pictures of all those bones!

Having attended a number of debates on the subject of Creationism verses Evolution (and listening to the questions and answers afterward), I am persuaded that most lay people have been misdirected about transitional forms.

I am pretty well convinced that all of the hours I have spent in conversations regarding evolution were probably in vain - for my opponents as well for me. Not just because we each failed to convert the other to our points of view, but because I donít think we were on the same wavelength as to just what a "transitional form" actually is.

I say that because I have been given so many examples of so-called "ongoing" processes that might be considered as evidence for the validity of evolution, and which were referred to as examples of transitional forms. One of them was the difference in the average height of human beings, say two thousand years ago (or even two hundred years ago) compared to the present time.

Another example that has been given is the difference in brain capacity of the human skull over great periods of time being (admittedly) so minute, but nevertheless an example of transitions in the evolution of human beings.

Iím sorry, but none of those examples fit the scientific definition of a transitional form. The differences in the average height of human beings, and the minute differences in the size of the brain cavity in human skulls, are nothing more than evidence of something we see in nature all the time, namely the adaptation of any and all species within each separate and distinct genesis kind.

Japanese people are on the average much smaller in stature than people of western Europe. Chinese people on the average tend to be taller, and larger than Japanese, yet both are Asians - and again, on the average, both are smaller than western Europeans.

People who live in the high mountainous areas have much larger lung capacity and therefore much larger thoracic cavities than those who live in areas that are at (or lower than) sea level. Negroid people are probably the most noticeably different of all, yet all of these are human beings, all of these are totally biologically compatible, and all of these can "crossbreed" and produce human offspring.

Nature allows for all sorts of adaptation within each genesis kind, and these adaptations can produce almost limitless variations of that kind. But no matter how much a kind may adapt, and no matter how many variations within that kind may crossbreed, the result will always be another individual (or group of individuals) of that same kind - never a brand new kind.

There is a very distinct difference between a Doberman Pincer and a Russian Wolfhound, but both are members of the same kind. They are dogs. If they chance to crossbreed, their offspring will also be dogs. A different variation for sure, but not a new and different kind.

Variations caused by crossbreeding and variations caused by adaptation to the environment do not now (nor is there any evidence that they ever did), result in a totally new and different life form. If human beings, dogs, apes, snakes, lizards, fish and birds did in fact evolve from "lower" life forms, then the fossil record should yield tens of thousands upon thousands of transitional forms. But such is not the case.

There has yet to be found even one fossil life form that represents a transition in the so-called evolutionary process. If we set up a Creation Model, and an Evolution Model, with each model predicting what the fossil record should look like, doesnít it seem reasonable and logical for the Creation Model to expect the fossil record to show an almost explosive appearance of highly complex, fully developed life forms without any evidence of transition?

We would therefore expect to find the sudden appearance (of fossil remains) of cats, dogs, mastodons, cows, trilobites, horses, bats, dinosaurs, crocodiles, apes, and men without any evidence of common ancestors. Each major kind at its earliest appearance in the fossil record would possess (fully developed) all of the characteristics that are used to determine that particular kind.

The Evolution Model would predict that the most ancient strata in which fossils are found would contain the most primitive forms of life capable of leaving a fossil record. As the layers of succeedingly younger strata were searched, we would expect to see the evidence of the gradual transition of all these relatively simple life forms into more and more complex forms of life.

As these living forms diverged into the millions of kinds which have existed in the past, and are existing today, we would expect to see the evidence of a slow and gradual transition of one form - or kind - into another. From protozoan to metazoan, from invertebrates to vertebrates, from fish to amphibians, to reptiles, to mammals, and so on, up to the dawn of man. None of these (transitional) forms would possess their fully developed characteristics. Granted, there are individual animals that possess features that are confused with this transitional state, but they are not transitional, but adaptations specific to that individual animal.  Examples of these would be lung fish, lobed-fin fish, and the duck-billed platypus.

For example, if amphibians evolved from fish (as evolutionists believe), then we would expect to find evidence of transitional forms showing the gradual transition of fins into legs, gills into lungs and so forth. Many other alterations in the anatomy of fishes would have to occur in order to change an animal from living its entire life span in water, into one which spends most of its life out of the water.  The emphasis here is on the gradual transition, not something found in one specific animal.

Fossil remains (or even a living creature) having both lungs and gills, or the useless vestiges of gills, might at least come close to qualifying as a transitional form between fish and amphibians, but nothing like that has ever been found.

For decades the theory of embryonic recapitulation was taught in high schools, and university biology text books, as the story of human evolution unfolding as the human embryo passed through the stages of gestation. At one point in the developing embryo it was believed that the fish stage of human evolution was depicted by the appearance of so-called "gill slits" along either side of the head and neck area.

Not only do these so-called gill slits never have anything to do with the respiration of the embryo, real science has determined that they are not "slits" at all, but folds and pouches that later develop into such organs as the Eustachian tubes, the tympanic cavity of the inner ear, the palatine tonsils, the thymus, parathyroid, the carotid arteries, the subclavian artery, and the ductus arterioles. Yet to this day, there are still high school biology teachers (and university professors), teaching this nonsense as if it were a fact.

The very same thing applies to the teaching of the human body as having a number of so-called vestigial organs - organs that are no longer in use because of our having evolved past our need for them. Every one of these organs have proven to be useful and necessary, and no reputable scientist will even mention the term anymore.

I need to point out that under certain conditions the loss of organs (or their function) can occur. Examples of that are amphibians (or fish) isolated in dark caves, which have lost their capacity see, and in some cases with no eyes at all. But again, this merely demonstrates the concept of adaptation - not evolution. The loss of function of a structure (or even the structure itself) simply indicates the loss of genetic information from the gene pool, which is actually the reverse of what is required for evolution.

I am fully prepared to provide a list of names of prominent, well known and reputable scientists, biologists, geneticists and archeologists - evolutionists all - who freely admit without shame, the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Dr. Richard B. Goldschmidt, a professor at the University of California (before his death), frustrated by the lack of any transitional forms, postulated his own theory of "systematic mutation" which he himself called, "The Hopeful Monster Theory." He simply explained the absence of transitional forms with an idea that didnít require any!

Simply put, Dr. Goldschmidt explained the lack of transitional forms (and the sudden appearance of fully developed life forms in the fossil record) with the concept that each higher life form did appear suddenly! Like, one day a lizard laid an egg, and a bird hatched out! One day a primate gave birth, and a human came out! What a shock that must have been to the poor mother.

The truth (and therefore the bottom line) is this: No matter how many scientists believe in evolution, and no matter how many scientists believe in creation (and there are many), this does not qualify either position as science. Both creation and evolution are totally outside the realm of true, empirical science.

The Oxford Dictionary defines science as, "A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths, or with observed facts, systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain."

Therefore, in order for a theory to qualify as "scientific," it must be supported by events, processes, or properties which can be observed, and the theory must be useful in predicting the outcome of future natural phenomena or laboratory experiments. An additional limitation usually imposed is that the theory must be capable of falsification.

That is, it must be possible to conceive some experiment, the failure of which would disprove the theory. It is on the basis of this criteria that most evolutionists insist that creationism be refused consideration as a possible explanation of origins. Creation has not been witnessed by human observers, it cannot be tested experimentally, and as a theory it is non-falsifiable. The same thing can be said about evolution. So I will:

Evolution has never been witnessed by human observers. It cannot be tested experimentally, and as a theory it is non-falsifiable. As a thinking, rational, and reasonable human being - of at least average intelligence - I have every right to reject the theory of evolution as science, and to regard it for what it actually is, namely the religion of the modern secular humanist.

Evolution is simply a myth. Sophisticated, and compatible with a mentality that deems itself too intelligent for God. It is presented as fact, but I see it more as a religion, a religion of the agnostic and the atheist. Though, I suppose that a person coud say that they believe in God, yet discount the Biblical acount of creation.   In my opinion, all of this makes it a religion that requires a faith far greater than mine. 

I need also to point out that the issue of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record is not a creationist accusation, but rather a widely known and accepted fact. A fact that does seem to be a source of embarrassment for some evolutionists. Even to the point of lying about it. Even to the point of manufacturing fake transitional forms.

The famous Piltdown Man turned out to be a deliberate hoax perpetrated by combining the skull of an ape with the jawbone of a man, and impregnating them with iron-oxide to give the appearance of great age. This was done by a once reputable scientist and scholar whose commitment to the cause of "validating" the theory of evolution was more important than the truth.

Neanderthal Man has always been (and continues to be) illustrated as a brutish, hunched over, ape-looking, subhuman creature, not truly ape nor man. These illustrations portray Neanderthal with bestial features, bull necks, ape-like bony ridges over the eye sockets, and knees which cannot bend straight.

The bones of Neanderthal were found in a cave in the Neanderthal Valley in 1856. In a subsequent excavation in 1908 a complete Neanderthal skeleton was found. This skeleton was the model for all of the textbook drawings and museum displays of Neanderthal Man.

Then in 1956 a group of respected scientists (evolutionists all) reexamined the bones and concluded that they were of an individual who suffered from severe skeletal malformation resulting from rickets and arthritis. They determined that Neanderthals walked just as upright as we do, and if they were dressed in modern clothing, they would draw no more special attention in a public gathering than anyone else.

The discoverer of Pithecanthropus Erectus (Java Man), Eugene Dubois, admitted in 1936 that Java man was nothing more than a very large gibbon. It seems like every time some anthropologist discovers another of "manís oldest known ancestor," it either turns out to be a fraud, or else another anthropologist finds another two or three pieces of bone and a couple of teeth which become the new missing link. Until his death in 1971, Louis Leakey was the principal expert Australopithecine researcher.

Then his bright young son Richard came on the scene and proclaimed that daddyís great discoveries were nothing more than "long-armed, short-legged, knucklewalkers," no different than modern (living) African apes.

At the moment "Lucy" is the current source of spontaneous orgasm for the evolutionist camp. A collection of a few bones and fragments, one found over here, another found over there somewhere, and whatever pieces not found were simply "reconstructed" to fill in the gaps.

Now we have a little creature, fabricated from a few bones that might not have even belonged to the same type of creature let alone the same individual creature. And to think, some people are still having problems with the rib story in Genesis.

I think someday the ultimate computer will be built. It will interface and download all of the information from every computer on the face of the earth. All the great scientists, philosophers and theologians will gather and ask the ultimate computer the ultimate question: "How did this universe, the moon, the sun, the earth and all of mankind come into existence?

Lights will blink, hard drives will hum and all will stand silent while the text appears across the screen, "Ö.In the beginning God created the heavens and the earthÖÖ"

Posted 23 January 1999

Go on to comments: By Conrad Knauer - 6 Nov 2003
Return to: The Faith of Evolution And Distortions of Biblical History
Return to: Discussion Table of Contents