Skip to content

Today's Creation Moment

What Has Evolution Given to the World?
Ecclesiastes 1:14
"I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit."
We get lots of interesting letters and e-mails here at Creation Moments. Most of them are positive, but occasionally we hear from someone who disagrees with us. One such writer told us that there are...

The Problems with Evolution, Part 1: Misunderstandings

Steve RisnerThis blog posting was written by Steve Risner and is used with his permission. Steve is a member of the Creation Moments group on Facebook. He wrote this as a letter to the editor of his local newspaper. We have broken up the letter into four parts and are posting it on successive days.

I have been involved with the study of creation and evolution for about 15 years. I love the study of science and am fascinated by nature. I’ve seen the Church struggle with the idea of evolution and felt it would be beneficial for those who are interested to see some of the troubles the theory of evolution has. But first, I think it necessary to address key misunderstandings in the debate.

This is not a science vs. religion debate by any means. Creationists use science all the time. In fact, most major divisions of science were founded by creationists. The debate is based on worldview and presuppositions. Many suggest science is unbiased. Science is unbiased, but scientists cannot be. He/she will always bring presuppositions to the table. This is evidenced by the fact that many finds have been pushed aside because they do not support old earth presuppositions or the evolutionary model. In fact, many of the so-called “evidences” for evolution require you to first believe it before you view the evidence. There is no such thing as facts that support evolution and facts that support creation. Creationists use the same facts that evolutionists use. We just interpret them differently.

Another misunderstanding is that creationists deny that populations of organisms change over time. This has been observed. However, a small change over time is not the same thing as very large changes over time. If a bird develops a sharper beak, it’s still a bird. If a moth develops a different color scheme on its wings, it’s still a moth. Creationists do not deny change but its extent. The Darwinist is generally talking of an innumerable amount of change from the first, single living thing into all the 3,000,000+ known species of organisms on the planet. Creationists refer to this as “molecules to man” evolution. However, evolutionists generally use information that suggests organisms can change slightly over time and make a giant leap to say this shows large changes will take place. There are numerous hurdles involved in this process that no one has yet to explain. Most of them have to do with functional anatomy. There is no way to explain major gaps between organisms. The Darwinian tree of ancestry doesn’t exist in real life and never has. As I hope to show, there is little support of Darwinian evolution and several very large problems that have yet to be explained.


I see. If you accept micro evolution then it is pretty much game over. You already believe that animals can and do change over time then what is stopping these animals from completely changing over a billion years? You have already conceded the argument and now you are just fighting a rear guard action.

He didn't say "If you accept micro evolution then it is pretty much game over". He said that we have evidence of micro evolution, change within a species (or even more accurately, a biblical "kind"). But we don't see, and the evolutionists assume, is this somehow equals macro evolution, change of one species into some other species given enough time. And of course this is only after something came from nothing in the first place. There is simply no evidence of this at all and the author of the article rightly points this out. I don't know what you're talking about.

Variation within the species has been renamed "microevolution" in order to equate it with evolution, but it is still variation within a species. As for having billions of years to accomplish the unwitnessed feat of evolutionism, that is such a large assumption that only a fool would make it. A little wisdom and research will soon convince a thinking person that design is required, and that time was designed, also. The assumption that time exists in and of itself without any explanation or limits is a big assumption, and one without which evolutionists are exposed for the vain theorists that they are.

Micro evolution is not really a representative term. One example of what the author is talking about is the pepper wing moths in England. In one generation their wing color change was well documented. What was NOT well documented to the general public was that in one generation the wing color changed back to the original color. These cannot be evolutionary changes, as those are permanent, occurring over a long period of time. These changes are more like the case of blue eyes versus brown eyes and have to do with recessive and dominant genes. It was there already, you know.

The comments made above, (game over?), show the consistent lack of truth regarding the facts and skewing evidence to "prove" evolution.

Not so. Micro-evolution, or adaptative mechanisms, are well established and are changes within a species - not a change OF a species into a new life form.

You're probably thinking of Macro-evolution where a species mutates into a completely different life form - the lizard-to-bird being the classic example.

Actually, the real issue is the vast amounts of beneficial new information that needs to be introduced to create the evolutionary model, coupled with the conundrum of irreducible complexity. Most incremental change that is observed is exchanges of information (genes) or loss of information in response to the environment.

For evolution to work, you have to accept that vast amounts of new information have been created--usually evolutionists proffer mutation. However well this may work in the plant world, it fails miserably in the animal and human world. Never has there been shown a beneficial mutation in humans. Rather, all have been detrimental and, in fact, we are devolving as harmful genetic mutations build up over time. This is the whole basis of eugenics. Kill off those with harmful mutations. In fact, it was the basis for the founding of Planned Parenthood to reduce, if not eliminate, the black community due to its inferior genetics (Margaret Sanger).

The second issue is irreducible complexity. Take the knee; there is no sequence of incremental development of new expressions of the components of the knee that would have a useful purpose. Under the 'rules' of evolution, those detrimental and un-useful parts would have disadvantaged that entity and so it would have been 'selected' out. Same problem with the eye and other complex systems.

This does not even speak to the organic 'soup' and handedness of the necessary components and how the process of creating life via evolution would overcome entropy. Face it, evolution is just a religious belief to exclude the supernatural as a viable explanation of life. I cannot--nor should you--'believe' in science, which has as its core Occam's Razor: Science accepts the simplest explanation that fits all the facts, until either a a simpler explanation is put forth or a fact is discovered that does not fit. Therefore, 'Science' is never settled and there is only the pursuit of explanations for observable facts.

It appears you are assuming that micro-evolution involves gain of more complex information. The micro-evolution is a misnomer as it is just natural selection (breeding as you will) that involves loss of information by breeding out certain genetic traits. This is actually devolution, not evolution. Mutations also cause "micro-evolution", but again, it is not gain of more complex information and usually a loss of function or information.

Addressing your comment on micro evolution, small changes are not evolution, this is adaptation.
For example, spending time in the sun results in darker skin, but the person is still human, not evolving into something else.

Unfortunately like so many evolutionists, you fail to understand the sciences. [Micro] evolution is a Creationist concept that was fine-tuned by Edward Blyth around 1835 who was the first to devise current nomenclature for breeding, varieties, natural selection, radiation, adaptation and etc. His novel descriptions were published in peer-reviewed journals that stated these mechanisms were only limited to mechanisms of preservation and were incapable of biological innovation for creating any new species. It was Darwin who stole or plagiarized Blyth's work, perverting it to fit his evolutionist doctrine.

The result, there can be no gradualism for [macro] evolution since Blyth's studies showed there is never any new or novel information or structure which arises from mutations, while those mutations most often lead to degeneration. This was later reconfirmed by G. Mendel and his Law of Genetics or Inheritance (the founder of modern genetics). His conclusions, which have been tediously varied in countless experiments, proved there cannot be any transmutation of species because DNA has mutational limits that cannot be crossed.

Again, this had been reconfirmed by more recent studies which developed the law of recurrence that shows there is a limitation to the variability of mutations.

Ever notice how modern evolutionists attempt to focus attention to the [micro] evolution aspects, instead of the [macro]? This is because of the countless studies, scientists are completely aware that species are incapable of branching into an advanced species. All they may do is to create new varieties of that species thru breeding, natural selection and adaptation. All genomes are constrained to how much they may change.

Thus, there is no gradualism for speciation nor is there any common ancestry for species other than to those limited in their respective species as different varieties of the species (i.e., no transitional links, no new life forms or structure).

However, evolutionists refuse to publicly announce these studies or findings, but do not hesitate to promote something which they may contort to fit their falsified theories as if it were truth. Again, the promulgation of such material is not based on science. To the contrary, it is solely based on religious aspirations that pretend to use science in support of a falsified theory. But evolutionary scientists already know this and many have begun to express concerns over the lack of proof of Darwinism. They want it removed from the books.

Because of the "faith", they are still evolutionists. However they fully realize Darwinism needs to be abandoned. Even the National Science Foundation [NSF], the National Center for Science Education [NCSE], and the National Academy of Sciences acknowledge this, but each have stated they are not willing to publicly abandon theory due to public reaction that would open the door to Creationism being taught in school as a replacement.

This has never been about science!! Only the misinformed believe that. Instead, this has always been about religion, and many evolutionary scholars, government leaders and the UNESCO (the U.N.'s branch that controls the world's education systems) have admitted this.

"If you accept micro evolution then it is pretty much game over. You already believe that animals can and do change over time then what is stopping these animals from completely changing over a billion years? You have already conceded the argument and now you are just fighting a rear guard action."

This assertion (above) reveals the comment writer's lack of knowledge on the subject. Renowned evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould developed and advocated "punctuated equilibrium" theory to overcome the problem he observed, which was: micro evolution does not explain large scale or "macro" evolution. He argued that large scale evolution occurred not by small modifications, but by "saltations," i.e., large changes in a single mutating generation.

Nobody accused Dr. Gould of being a "creationist," and he went to his grave advocating evolution. For Dr. Gould and his colleagues and followers, the fact of "micro" evolution was and is a problem for large scale evolution, and "punctuated equilibrium via saltations" was proposed as a theoretical answer.

The comment writer apparently believes that "change over time" is what defines all forms of biological evolution. Of course, "change over time" applies to all sorts of things, many of which don't explain how a single cell animal can be modified in successive generations to become a tree, or venus flytrap, or clam, or whale, or monkey. Standard neo-Darwinian evolution theory says all species came about by a series of small genetic mutations acted upon by natural selection. That theory specifies a method -- it is not merely "change over time."

The ability to adapt to local conditions in the environment is built into the genes of each animal or plant. This is why you will see small changes over time. But these adaptations take place ONLY WITHIN the basic design of each. This is why finches' beaks will change, but then they can revert. The birds are still finches. The ability to adapt doesn't include the kind of changes that will enable a frog to become a prince, given enough time. This is also why subdividing into species is excessive, because many of these organisms will interbreed and produce viable offspring. It is no better than claiming each breed of dog is a separate species. While a Chihuahua female won't have the offspring of a Great Dane father, the reverse could be true. It is relative size that limits, not viability. There is no fatal error in his argument.

I fear that you misunderstand the precarious position of evolution. By shaking a tray of coins, one can get one coin to be on top of another. Therefore, if I shake the tray long enough, can I get a column of coins to the moon? You cannot extrapolate the two-coin result to the moon-column because several barriers stand in your way. The evolutionist wants to extrapolate a minor change within the variability of the organism (observed, but also its limits have been observed) to changes into completely new organisms (not observed, and opposed to what we have observed).

Of course you are a true evolutionist. You love taking big leaps not only in your "science" but also in your "debating". But, for those of us who are up to your tricks, trying to appear smart and yet not making a bit of sense, we honestly see there are literally IMPOSSIBLE hurdles you and your evolution friends can NOT get over.

What does make sense, is rather than facing what you are up against, it is easy for you to just say, "If you accept micro evolution then it is pretty much game over." We understand your statement; not for its honesty, but for its sheer desperation. Admit, you're DESPERATE! You can not make logical sense, so you just throw it to your god, time. Somehow your god, time, solves the impossible even though you can not logically explain your great leaps through your god, time. If you refuse to be honest with us, don't you owe it to yourself to be honest to YOU?

<a href="" title=""></a>

Please show where he "accepted micro evolution".

Most Evolutionists are trained to confuse the word "change" for "evolve".

All observed living organisms have been observed to change.
No observed living organisms have ever been observed to evolve.

These observed facts make thinking Evolutionists re-evaluate their belief in Evolution.

I think the problem is that there seem to be barriers between the species. WIth all the breeding of dogs that has been done, both chihuahuas and Irish wolfhounds are still canis familaris. On the other hand, animals as similar as donkeys and horses do not have fertile offspring. So, although we can produce and observe changes in living organisms, we do not (as far as I know) observe development of new species. And, it doesn't seem to be an issue of time. Scientists who study E. coli are working with about 20 minutes between generations. That is more than 26,000 generations in a year. And yet, as far as I know, no one has gotten it to mutate to a different species of bacteria. If a human generation is 20 years, then 26,000 generations would correlate to 520,000 human years. E. coli has been studied extensively since the 1940's and exposed to much intentionally mutagenic treatment. This time period would correspond to more than 35,000,000 years for human change using this rule of thumb.

So, accepting "micro-evolution" does not automatically yield to a conclusion that life developed from non-life by chance processes.

I'm sorry. I don't really follow what you mean by having conceded the argument.
Where did he falter?

I agree with anonymous on his comment. Micro-devolution, including loss of information, occurs through mutation (always harmful), and natural variation through genetic sorting of created information already in the genome occurs, but micro-evolution through beneficial mutation adding new information does NOT occur. Let's not accept a mechanism that does not exist. Belief in micro-evolution IS the basis of the Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution fantasy.

Functional anatomy is key. For an organism to be viable, it must be able to live in its current state. In short, every living being must be designed to be complete, entire, and functional... now. If not, the living being would die.

There is no support for believing anything contrary to this fact. You cannot wait enormous amounts of unspecified time for the organism to become viable. It must be viable from the start, or it cannot survive.