The Holes in Evolutionary Theory
by Geoffrey Biddulph

One of the first things religious skeptics ask you when you say you are religious, is, in one form or another, "how can you believe those fairy tales in the Bible?"

The basic argument that non-believers have made in the last 150 years or so is that researchers have clearly proven, through exhaustive study and experiment after experiment, that evolution is the only “scientific” explanation for human existence on this planet. Their position is that evolution is an unfailing truth and that the scriptures are nothing more than stories.

Given the way that we were all raised in the 20th century, most religious people are forced to immediately go on the defensive. They either mumble something about having faith or they say that the scriptures could be metaphorical and that it doesn't need to be factually true for it to be true to them. It is, after all, very difficult to find a common ground on which to defend the idea that Adam lived for more than 900 years and that the world was actually covered by a flood, given the current level of skepticism in our culture.

It seems to me religious people should be stepping up their efforts to go on the offensive on these issues. Before I actually began to look at the evidence, I threw my lot in with the non-believer, pro-evolution crowd. But it turns out that when you begin poking around at the evidence and look at the philosophical and logical issues involved, the argument for evolution is filled with Grand Canyon-sized holes.

This article will look primarily at the problems with evolution from a philosophical context, although I will take a short look at some of the scientific issues as well. There are literally thousands of books and articles looking at evolution from the “creationist” and “evolutionist” sides, and the amount of information is staggering. Yet it appears to me that both camps are guilty of not seeing the forest because they are counting the trees. When you take a step back and take a look at the philosophical and historical issues involving evolution, I believe you become pretty much convinced that it’s simply too early for evolutionists to declare victory. And I seriously doubt if they every will be able to do so.

It is worth pointing out right here that it is possible to believe in evolution and still believe in God. God could have started the evolutionary process and guided it along, and there’s no way to prove He did not. Still, I think the argument for evolution is, quite simply, very weak, and the evidence for scriptural truth is growing with time as new discoveries come to light (that evidence will be addressed in future articles).

But first, some definitions. When I say evolution, I am primarily talking about macro-evolution, the idea that men evolved from other species, as opposed to micro-evolution, the idea of evolution within a single species. Latter-day Saints are more than happy to accept the idea that we humans can evolve into better humans. It is worth pointing out that much of the evidence for micro-evolution is problematic, but I think it is easier to accept the idea of individual species improving themselves rather than species evolving to become completely different types of animals.

Another important point: there is no reason for Latter-day Saints to get caught in silly arguments about the literal interpretations of scripture. God created the world in six days, but we don't need to join the creationists who say a "day" can only be 24 hours. Modern-day revelation has made it very clear that a day to the Lord is different that it is for us (see Abraham 3:4). I like to think of the “days” of the scriptures as six distinct periods of time.

The first Grand Canyon-sized hole in the evolutionary argument is actually quite simple: evolutionists are caught in logical and philosophical dead-end by arguing that just because they have "proved" evolution in the lab or by studying how species evolve or through archeology they KNOW that human beings actually evolved that way. The reality is that evolutionists are not humble enough to admit that no matter how many thousands of experiments they do now, there is no way to prove that conditions on Earth millions or billions of years ago were anything similar to the conditions for their current experiments. They simply have no way of knowing what conditions were like at the times described in the evolutionary process; all they have, and all they ever will have, is conjecture.

Based on that conjecture, they have built up a scientific theory that professes an astounding amount of certainty. They are certain that life evolved from single cells in some sort of primeval soup; they are certain that this process continued until apes evolved into men. This is in itself not surprising; scientists have a long history of believing their unproven theories are fact. But evolutionists seem to have forgotten this history: they seem to ignore the grand history of science which has shown time and time again that any scientific discovery is, in the words of Karl Popper, "tentative forever."

This is pretty easy to prove. There was a time when scientific conventional wisdom in the West was absolutely convinced that most diseases were caused by "bad blood" and that you should treat illnesses by placing leeches on the body to suck out the offending corpuscles. Of course, there was also a time when science was certain that fevers in tropical areas were caused by "bad air" (we still call it malaria). It took science until the late 19th century to learn that mosquitoes were responsible for transmitting these diseases, not "bad air."

So, today there are many scientists, perhaps a majority, who are absolutely convinced that we human beings are descended from single-celled organisms and apes. Perhaps 50 years from now, this theory will be so discredited as to make it as laughable as using leeches to treat diseases. Or perhaps evolution will be refined and more believable. But the point is that 50 years from now people will be talking about evolution very differently than they do today.

By the way, what exactly is “science?” There are many definitions, but one of the best is “a branch of study of phenomena that are observable, testable and repeatable.” If you give 50 laboratory rats saccharin, and 45 die, you have a phenomenon that is observable, testable and repeatable. You have arrived at a scientific truth and can announce results with some level of certainty. Given that nobody on Earth is ready to begin populating other planets with life forms, we have no scientific certainty of any kind surrounding evolution.

Atheists love evolution because it helps them build a worldview without God. Little do they realize that it takes much more faith to believe in evolution, with all of its huge missing links, than to believe in God. Again, this is easy to prove: no matter how much atheists profess to believe in evolution, they always will have a nagging doubt that perhaps there really is a God. They will go to their deaths denying their creator with their lips, but they will always, always have fears about eternity. Some of them have the humility to admit this; most of them do not.

Even the most ardent evolutionary fundamentalists admit that they cannot explain many of the steps involved in the evolutionary process. They don’t know how life actually got its start, although they have some theories about the primeval soup. They don’t know how the cells evolved from species to species over time. They have no idea how monkeys involved into men. The most honest of the evolutionists will admit there had to be some scientific processes that we simply don’t understand or have not yet uncovered. In effect, these evolutionists believe in miracles.

In fact, they are willing to admit there were lots of miracles involved. What are the chances of life spontaneously generating on this planet without a Creator? Estimates vary, but even the most optimistic evolutionists admit it’s trillions to one. What are the chances that life could then evolve the way evolutionists describe. Again, trillions to one. There are lots of miracles there, lots of miracles that, as far as we know, nobody was around to witness.

Why is it that evolutionists are willing to believe in trillions of miracles that nobody was around to witness or record yet they are unwilling to believe in the miracles of the Bible and the Book of Mormon that were witnessed and recorded by many people? The scriptures give atheists and agnostics a real challenge: there are people being healed and raised from the dead, food miraculously being produced for thousands, waters being parted, and there’s all these people around who testify they actually saw these things. And some of them wrote down their testimony with the clear intent it be passed on to future generations.

The existence of the Book of Mormon itself raises an insurmountable problem for religious skeptics. If you study the historical facts involved, there is no logical explanation for the existence of the Book of Mormon except that it was revealed supernaturally to the young unlearned Joseph Smith. Its very existence is a miracle. In fact, there are at least 12 witnesses, actual live, breathing people, who saw the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. One is Joseph Smith, and the other 11 are people who signed their names to their testimonies at the front of the book. None of them has ever recanted this testimony. This is 12 more people than ever witnessed evolution taking place.

This argument may seem fanciful at first, but I believe God wants us to believe in things for which there are testimonies and witnesses. I believe He has, through the scriptures, prepared us for this time, when a majority of people would ignore the witnesses around them and cling to the philosophies of men. “In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established,” says Matthew 18:16. This message is so important that the scriptures repeat it time and again, in Deuteronomy 17:6, in 2 Corinthians 13:1, in Ether 5:4 and D&C 6:28 and 128:3.

Is there a better, more complete set of witnesses than the scriptures? The contents of the Old Testament have been confirmed by at least three independent sources: the Masoretic texts, the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are four separate testimonies of Jesus’ life in the New Testament and literally hundreds of different original copies of the writings in the New Testament. There were only two copies made of the original translation of the Book of Mormon, but there were 12 witnesses who gave written testimonies that they saw the plates. Of course, the Book of Mormon contains an important fourth source confirming some of the writings in the Old Testament.

In contrast, evolution has no witnesses and no confirmation. So, I have a choice: I can either believe in the once-in-a-gazillion possibility that maybe some life form billions of years ago evolved to become the human race, a process to which there are no witnesses and no proof, or I can believe in the restored Gospel, to which there is ample proof. Choice 1 gives me no hope for the future (our very existence on Earth is simply an accident) and no understanding of our unique role in the universe. Choice 2 gives us hope, fills our hearts with love for our magnanimous and brilliant Creator and gives us a definable purpose. Hmmm, I think I’ll choose Choice 2.

Just on the outside chance that my philosophical arguments are not compelling, it’s time to look at some of the science of the evolution argument. The point here is to highlight a few of the most egregious examples of uncertainty in the supposedly “scientific” world of pro-evolution promoters. Remember, you can take it to the bank that no matter what evolutionists are saying today they will be saying something different in the future.

• Neanderthals. Remains from one of the first “man-apes” were found in the Neander Valley of Germany in the 1850s and was later called a “Neanderthal.” Given the growing interest in Darwinism, scientists decades later jumped on this “man-ape” as evidence that men did in fact evolve from apes because of the Neanderthal’s low eyebrow ridges and stooped over posture. In fact Neanderthals were considered human ancestors by many until the mid-20th century, when embarrassed evolutionists had to head back to the drawing board. It turns out the Neanderthal’s brain capacity was larger than modern mans, and that did not fit any of the models. Now, evolutionists have hit on another theory: Neanderthals were simply an evolutionary dead end. (see note 1)
  
  
• Piltdown Man. Evolutionists have a long history of trying to make discoveries fit their theories (a somewhat backwards kind of science, you could say). When Charles Dawson reported finding a human skull and parts of an ape-like lower jaw in Piltdown, England, evolutionists jumped on the discovery to claim they had found a missing link. Nobody ever checked to see if the skull and the jaw ever belonged to the same individual until 1953, when it was proven that the skull belonged to a modern human and the jaw belonged to a modern orangutan. Oops! It turns out the jaw had been chemically treated to make it look like a fossil, and its teeth had been filed down to make them appear human. (see note 2)
  
  
• Toumai skull. In a more recent case, jubilant evolutionists announced in July 2002 that they had discovered a pre-human ancestor believed to be at least 6 million years old in the African nation of Chad. They insisted the skull showed signs of evolution from ape to human. Now, scientists are saying the skull is simply that of a female gorilla or a chimpanzee or another species that has since become extinct. There is no evidence to indicate the skull is humanoid, these scientists say. (see note 3)
  
  
• Single-ancestor doctrine. Evolutionists were convinced for decades in Darwin’s theory that all organisms are derived from a single primordial ancestor. Now, some biologists are saying that three cell types arose from three forms of proto cells that swam together in a dense genetic soup. For those of us who are not evolutionary fundamentalists, these arguments are just another example of how little we really know about the details of the foundation of life. When will evolutionists admit they simply don’t know and probably never will all of the details of life’s origins? (See note 4)
  
  
• The Miller-Urey Experiment. Everybody knows scientists have supposedly recreated the conditions for spontaneously generating life in a primordial soup, right? At least most biology textbooks say they have, and so do most of the science journals. In fact, it has become such an accepted “fact” that nobody questions it anymore. Except for a few intrepid scientists who have raised some nasty questions. It turns out that the original experiment by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in the early 1950s has been completely discredited. The Miller-Urey experiment was based entirely on the supposition that primitive Earth lacked oxygen, but all recent scientific evidence points to the existence of oxygen. Chemists now admit there is no evidence that the conditions postulated by the Miller-Urey experiment accurately describe how life could have been generated. (see note 5)
  
  
• The Galapagos Finches. Peter and Rosemary Grant began studying finches in the Galapagos Islands in the early 1970s. They observed that during droughts many of the finches died, and the ones that survived had larger beaks so they get at the tough seeds that were available. The Grants speculated that the finches’ beaks would continue to grow from drought to drought and would be examples of new species. There was only one problem: the beaks actually decrease in size during the non-drought years, so the size of the beaks remains stable over time. The facts didn’t fit the theory. The finches were good examples of natural selection in the wild, which is basic common sense (a stronger animal will survive) but they were not examples of the creation of new species. In fact, the evidence simply states that individual species will sometimes adapt to difficult environmental circumstances. Yet to this day the Grants, science textbooks and leading science journals manipulate the results of the Grants’ research to claim that it proves evolutionary theory. (see note 6)

I have encountered literally hundreds of other examples that raise questions about the “truth” of evolution. But don’t believe me: just pick up your daily newspaper in the next year and count how many new discoveries completely change the way paleontologists and other scientists think about evolution. In the last few years, I have noted new discoveries on literally a monthly basis. Why should I put my faith in a theory that is that inexact?

Right about now, the rabid evolutionist reading this is blurting out, “Well how do you explain all those skeletons of people on Earth who look humanoid before Adam? And how do you explain the dinosaurs?” And I very calmly and humbly respond: “I don’t know.” I am very comfortable with the fact that I simply have no idea what the Lord was doing with the material he used to create the Earth before he decided to place Adam here, beyond what the scriptures have revealed.

My personal opinion is that we are not yet supposed to know many things about the Lord’s creations. The size and expanse of the universe is simply staggering; it is impossible for the human mind to comprehend our place in the vast expanse of the cosmos. Whenever I think of all of the mysteries in the universe, I always bring to mind Moses 1:33-35, in which the Lord says: “worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for my own purpose…but only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you.” God did not try to explain everything to Moses. He gave him a relatively small amount of information, most of it having to do with the Gospel. There are simply many things about the universe, and even the creation of this world, that we are not yet ready to know.

I am not saying we should not study these things and try our best to understand them. The Lord through modern revelation has made it clear that we are expected to study all types of learning: “study and learn, and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues and people.” (D&C 90:15). Survey after survey has shown that Latter-day Saints are the most intellectual of religious people, with a love of all types of learning, including all of the sciences.

But I believe we are meant to use our intelligence to distinguish between atheistic propaganda masquerading as incontrovertible scientific fact and real scientific discoveries. I would encourage scientists to continue to explore the issue of human origins. Someday we may get some real answers. Unfortunately, evolutionists’ declaration of victory is akin to Columbus announcing he had discovered the Americas when he really had only made it to the Azores: there is a big, wide ocean there of scientific discovery that needs to take place before we can officially say that evolution is the answer.

To see what I mean, take a look at the attached article from the Scientific American, which is the most concise pro-evolution argument I have encountered. Scientific American is one of the country’s most respected science journals and a regular campaigner in favor of evolution. A skeptical reader may want to note how many times the article says that a given scientific theory “could” prove evolution to be true. The basic point of the article appears to be to repeat again and again how scientists are certain that evolution is true (just as they were certain through most of the 19th century that “bad air” caused malaria).

Here’s the link: click here

Response number 3 is directed at evolutionary theory’s weakest point, which is that it is so, well, unscientific to claim something is factual on a mountain of unproven suppositions. Let’s see how many falsehoods and logical lapses are in just this one five-paragraph response.

1) The response tries to build a “straw man” argument by claiming that because microevolution has been “proven” macroevolution must also be true. There is a huge difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Evolutionary theory must be accepted as factual when macroevolution is proven (an impossible task, given the fact that we don’t know for sure what happened on the Earth millions of years ago).

2) We have already addressed the issue of the Grants’ finches above. Does Scientific American know it is deliberately twisting research results in an attempt to “prove” evolution?

3) The entire argument in favor of macroevolution is, by Scientific American’s own admittance, based on “inference.” Anybody who has done the most basic research on any subject knows that you can prove anything you want by bringing certain evidence to the forefront and suppressing contradictory evidence. That is exactly what evolutionary fanatics have done. Scientific American claims that “evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans…and the appearance of anatomically modern humans…one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows.” In fact, the fossil record shows no such thing. The fossil record shows that there have been many claims that ancient fossils are hominid, when in fact they mostly turn out to be apelike (see the Toumai skull above). The fossil record is in fact far from conclusive on this issue. There appear to be lots of ape-like beings throughout history, and evolutionary fundamentalists have done everything possible to twist the evidence into a structure that supports their theory.

4) The fourth paragraph is filled with a truly remarkable piece of evolutionary propaganda: we are expected to believe that evolution is true because nobody has been able to prove that complex species spontaneously generate from inanimate matter or that aliens started life on Earth. Huh? Well, if we can’t prove these two theories than evolution MUST be true! After all, how else do you explain how we got here? (God of course is not even a possible answer, despite the fact that he has left some pretty good records explaining exactly how we got here).

The bottom line impression I get after carefully reading the Scientific American article (and many, many other articles and books on evolution) is that evolution is simply an act of faith. Atheists and agnostics do not want to believe the God of the Bible, so they have built up an alternate philosophy and claimed it is “scientific” and therefore “true.”

This issue is particularly pertinent today. Evolutionists pretty much owned the 20th century. Our schools are filled with teachers and textbooks claiming that evolution is “fact.” Even remarkable Christian minds such as C. S. Lewis never put up a serious challenge to evolutionist’s claims that their worldview was the “scientific” one while the alternative was filled with fantasy.

Lately, we’ve seen a fair share of school boards in Georgia, Ohio, Kansas and elsewhere begin to challenge the conventional wisdom on evolution. They are opening space for the “intelligent design” movement, which is a rational, scientific alternative to evolutionary group-think. Jonathan Wells’ “Icons of Evolution” shows very convincingly that all of the major textbooks used in schools include a long series of falsehoods and exaggerations regarding evolution. Wells suggests that these textbooks include warning labels pointing out how unscientific the evidence is in favor of evolution. I find Wells’ evidence incontrovertible and would encourage all parents to read his book before letting their kids accept pro-evolutionary propaganda.

Eighteenth century theologian-naturalist William Paley made one of the best arguments ever for our existence being the work of a Creator. Paley said that if we were to cross a field and encounter a rock, we could speculate that it was part of a bigger rock or part of the field itself. We would not have to think that somebody made the rock. However, if we were to cross a field and encounter a pocket watch on the ground, logic would dictate that somebody must have made the watch. A complex piece of machinery like that couldn’t spontaneously generate or be the work of an accidental accumulation of molecules. Human beings are billions of times more complex than a pocket watch; it is simply not logical to assume that beings as complex as humans are here by accident. Somebody must have made us. Over the years, the best anti-theists -- Hume, Darwin and the late Stephen Jay Gould – have tried to overcome this argument. In my humble opinion, they have all failed.

We know that the theory of evolution will look very different 50 years from now than it does today. But let’s say that someday down the road evolutionists prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Even then, their theory has one huge whole that is impossible to overcome: they cannot prove that God did not start the whole process and is not overseeing it today.

In the end, evolution is an extremely flawed theory with huge holes. And even if it is right, it could never be used to prove or disprove the existence of God. So, why are religious believers letting those arguments go unchallenged? It’s time to change the game.

Bibliography and Notes: Evolutionists will often claim that no respected scientists believe in intelligent design, as if by repeating it again and again it will somehow become a fact. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There are literally hundreds of books by intelligent design proponents and others discussing the flaws of evolution. The author recommends the following: Jonathon Wells’ “Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth” (Regnery Publishing, 2000) is an excellent look at the many claims that evolutionists make that simply don’t hold water. The research notes are simply astonishing. I also recommend “The Creator and the Cosmos” by Hugh Ross, PhD (NavPress, 2001) and “In Six Days,” edited by John F. Ashton, PhD (Master Books, 2000). “In Six Days” has writings by 50 scientists who reject evolution.

Note 1: “The Myths of Human Evolution,” Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), p. 76.

Note 2: “The Piltdown Fraud: Available Evidence Reviewed,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 12 (1954), pp. 1-7.

Note 3: Associated Press article, “Earliest hominid skull challenged,” Oct. 10, 2002.

Note 4: “New Theory of Cell Evolution Rejects Single-Ancestor Doctrine,” Scientific American.com, June 19, 2002.

Note 5: “Icons of Evolution,” Jonathon Wells (Regnery Publishing, 2000), pp. 9-27.

Note 6: “Icons of Evolution,” pp. 159-175.

Click here to sign up for Meridian's FREE email updates.