homeClassesAboutBeliefArticlesAre You Saved?LinksStoreContact



Is Evolutionism Science?

By Lucas Nuckols

    According to a Gallup poll, less than forty percent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.  This poll sends a clear message that there are huge flaws in the theory of evolution (Gallup, 2009).  This survey is very shocking and is quite contrary to what is promoted by most of the evolutionist media sources, such as “National Geographic,” “Scientific American,” “Nova,” and more.  These sources often attempt to lead people to believe that evolution is a fact and that almost everyone believes in it.  Most atheistic evolutionists (not all) believe that the universe started with a “Big Bang,” a huge explosion that created the universe.  They do not know where this energy came from or why it took place.  They believe after a long period of time rocks were formed out of that explosion.  Many evolutionists believe that after the “Big Bang” there was a “primordial soup” for millions of years, and out of that primordial soup a simple life form developed.  After millions and millions of years that simple life form progressed to more “complex” life forms through series of mutations into where we are today.

      There is often confusion as to what exactly evolution means, since there are so many types of evolution, such as cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, macroevolution, microevolution, and chemical evolution, and others.  The only evolution that we see happening today is microevolution, which according to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary means  “comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level” (2009).  Microevolution is accepted as a fact by most scientists, and it should not be confused with the others in reference to evolution.  The others types of evolution have never been actually seen or observed happening, so there is no concrete evidence to support the theory that these types of evolution are happening.

      Charles Darwin came up with the theory of evolution in 1837 (1859, p.27).  He was on the H.M.S Beagle during a voyage in the Galapagos Islands and noticed the variety of beaks the finches had there, which sparked his interest to study natural selection.  By studying natural selection he came up with the theory of evolution and printed his book, The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, in 1859.  

      Since the publishing of Darwin's book, there have been heated debates on the topic of the origin of life, which have sparked court battles, such as “The Scopes Monkey Trial”.  The monkey trial, according to Douglas Linder (n.d.), took place in July of 1925 (para. 7).  Even though “The Scopes Monkey Trial” was a major court battle, the debate of the origin of life is still unresolved.  Thus, the theory of evolution should be questioned closely by more scientists and not treated like a scientific law, because there is very little evidence for it.  There are also major flaws in the theory of evolution, such as irreducibly complex systems, lack of transitional fossils, genetics, and evidence for a younger earth.  Apart from very little evidence for evolution and numerous data that does not support the theory, evolution also devalues life.  If this topic is looked at objectively, creation science is by far a more logical explanation.

      One major problem with the theory of evolution is that of irreducibly complex systems.  According to Michael Behe, the author of Darwin's Black Box, an “irreducibly complex system” cannot be made by minute, consecutive changes of a previous system, since any change to remove a part of an “irreducibly complex system” will result in non-functionality (1996).  This means that if one part is missing, the whole system will fail.  The problem that challenges the theory of evolution is that an organism cannot evolve if it cannot live with one part missing.  Michael Behe (1996) gives an example of a mousetrap as an irreducibly complex mechanism.  The mousetrap has five basic parts to it: hammer, spring, catch, holding bar, and platform.  If any one of these parts were missing, the whole mousetrap would fail to function (pp. 42-43).  This is the same way with irreducibly complex systems, such as the eye.  The eye is a good example of an irreducibly complex system because if one part was taken out of the eye, such as the lens, the retina, iris, cornea, or optic nerve, the eye would be a totally useless system.  In fact, Charles Darwin (1858) said it best when he wrote in his book, The Origin of Species, “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” (p.171).  What Darwin wrote here is ironic, not only because he came up with the theory of evolution and will admit this, but because most other evolutionists today will not even acknowledge this.  At the time when Darwin came up with the theory of evolution, he did not know about irreducibly complex systems like scientists do today.  These irreducibly complex systems prove a major flaw in the theory of evolution.

      The problem with the theory of evolution is not only with irreducibly complex systems; it has yet another problem: macroevolution.  Macroevolution is, according to Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, “evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)” (2009).  “Species formation” is referring to changes outside a species, e.g., a chicken evolving into a hamster.  There is only one problem with macroevolution, and that is that there is no proof for it. This may seem like a rash statement, because evolution has been accepted as a fact by so many of the scientists and other individuals today.  By looking at all the new discoveries in the field of science and scientific facts known, there is no proof found for changes outside a species. There are other problems with this conclusion that Darwin made. 

      One of these problems is in the genetic code.  The genetic code can change within the species from generation to generation, but it cannot have new information added to it.  For instance, a person could take a wolf and pick out one trait like a black colored coat, and then breed it for several generations until all they would get are black wolf puppies.  A person then could breed them with other homozygous (a genotype were both alleles are the same) black wolves, but you will not get brown ones.  With those wolves, the genetic information is being lost, and after several generations the only color of wolves they could get would be black.  The way evolutionists explain this is that there are mutations happening which give the animal an advantage over another.  In theory that might sound good, but there has never been a beneficial mutation, and mutations have never added new information; they only take away something already there or add an extra arm, leg, or even head, from the information already in the DNA code. Dr. Jay Wile states “The hypothesis of macroevolution assumes that a given life form has an unlimited ability to change.  This means that some process must exist to add information to the creature genetic code...there is precious little data supporting such a hypothesis and quite a lot of data contradicting it” (p. 281,1998). Maciej Giertych, a former professor of genetics to various universities in Poland said, “I felt uneasy lecturing about positive mutations when I could not give an example (para 8, 1995).” Unlike Maciej, many professors and scientists are not closely examining what they are teaching but rather just repeating what they read in their text books.  As a result of parroting text books, evolutionists are not looking at science for answers to the origin of life, they are looking at the theory of evolution and trying to fit science into it.  This type of approach to science does not work and never has.

      Another problem that macroevolution faces, is that there have never been any transitional fossils found.  If evolution is true, and death weeds out imperfections, there should be millions and millions of transitional fossils found.  However, paleontologists find quite a different story; they have found no transitional fossils.  Evolutionists make the argument that the archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil, because it has little fingers on its wings and teeth.  Dr. David Menton believes that the archaeopteryx is fully a bird, and that there is no evidence that it descended from a dinosaur.  He also notes that there are other birds like the ostrich that have fingers on its wings (2008).  Devout evolutionists use the theory of punctuated equilibrium to explain the lack of transitional fossils.  Punctuated equilibrium, according to Bio Medicine.org, “is a theory of evolution which states that changes such as speciation can occur relatively quickly, with long periods of little change--equilibria--in between” (n.d.).  There is no evidence for punctuated equilibrium.  Evolutionists made up the theory of punctuated equilibrium, so that they can believe in their protectively guarded religion: evolution.  Coming up with a hypothetical theory to explain another flawed theory, like evolution, is not science. 

      Besides the lack of transitional fossils, another problem arises for the theory of evolution, and that is the age of the earth.  The age of the earth is important, because evolution needs a lot of time for it to work.  In fact, many scientists believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old, as reported by a geological survey taken by The United Stated Department of the Interior (n.d).  First of all, there is no tangible evidence for the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years old.  Support for a young earth can be found in a lot of different areas of the world and universe.  One of these is the sediment on the ocean floor.  According to research compiled by Dr. Russell Humphrey, the ocean floor sediment is only four hundred meters deep.  Twenty billion tons of dirt and rock are being brought into the ocean by erosion each year. Dr. Humphrey does point out that there are ways that sediment leave the ocean by a process called plate tectonic subduction (the shifting of the ocean floor beneath the continents), but that only removes an estimated amount of one billion tons of sediment per year.   That means there is roughly nineteen billion tons of sediment accumulating in the ocean floor.   The existing amount that is on the bottom of the ocean right now would only take twelve million years to accumulate (para 5, 2005).  Twelve million years are a far cry from 4.5 billion years which is believed by some scientists to be the age of the earth.  Most creationists would argue that the sediment accumulated on the ocean floor could have accumulated a lot faster by a global flood.  There is another piece of evidence for a young earth that also comes from the ocean.  This time it has to do with the amount of salt in the ocean.   In Dr. Humphrey's research, he has found that 450 million tons of salt is deposited into the ocean each year, and only twenty-seven percent of that salt finds its way out of the ocean.   The rest of the salt (73% of the 450 billion tons) gathers in the ocean.  Assuming that the sea had no sodium in the water at all, it would take 42 million years for it to accumulate to the levels of sodium present in the ocean now (2005).  This evidence not only shows a huge problem with the evolutionary theory; it could destroy it.

       In addition to there being little evidence for evolution, evolution also devalues life in a way that causes some people to no longer view life as valuable and needing protection.  Instead, death is a mere means of furthering the evolutionary process by natural selection.  If people just came from a series of accidents, life is of little value and there is no right or wrong. The full title of Darwin's book, The Origin of Species By means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life is appallingly racist.  This type of evolutionary thinking was used by Adolph Hitler in exterminating the elderly, crippled, and retarded.  Hitler also wanted to purify the human race by eliminating people of various minority races, as well as Jewish people, which he considered  “inferior races.”  If evolution is true, this type of thinking should not be surprising, because there is no such thing as right or wrong, and after all, humans are just a few mutations away from monkeys.  Maybe this dangerous type of reasoning is the cause for so many murders, school shootings, and abortions.   It just might be only a coincidence that the first school shooting was in 1966, according to the Virginia Tech Review (p.3, 2007), around the same time the theory of evolution was widely accepted in the American public.  It is not the availability of guns why shootings are happening more frequently today, because guns were far more easily acquired years ago than they are today, as any old timer will tell you.  No, the prospect to do wrong has not changed but the public's beliefs have, such as there are no absolutes, no right or wrong, and morality is whatever is believed personally.  This perspective could easily have developed from evolutionary thought, where it is believed that people gradually evolved from mutated pond scum.  Individuals are hit with this dangerous thinking every day through the media and the public school system, since the theory of evolution is treated as fact in most public arenas.

This is clearly seen just by going into any public library and one can see whole shelves of books on evolution or about Charles Darwin, but it would be hard to find even a handful of books on intelligent design or creation science.

      With all that said, scientists should not be afraid to have their theory looked at and questioned, because this will either strengthen their theory or discredit it.  With the theory of evolution there is very little evidence for it, so it should not be treated like a scientific law as so many scientists, museums, schools, and the media often treats it.  As I have attempted to show, creation science is much more of a reasonable theory than evolution.

      The complexity of life is a major problem to the evolutionists, especially with irreducibly complex systems.  Irreducibly complex systems place the evolutionary theory in a tough spot, because if a system or organism cannot make small successive changes, it would become non-functional and could not evolve.

      There is also the lack of transitional fossils.  If evolution is true, there should be million and millions of transitional fossils, yet devout evolutionists try to patch up the theory with proclaiming there is “punctuated equilibrium.”   Another problem that questions the theory of evolution is the age of the earth.  In order for evolution to take place, it needs a lot of time, and as described above, there is evidence for the earth being much less than 4.5 billion years old. 

      With all this evidence stacked against the theory of evolution, one would wonder why so many scientists believe in the theory of evolution.  No one in their right mind would say that a car, a building, or a computer didn't have a designer, but it is mind baffling that people will look at the intricate design of plants and animals and say it all happened by chance.  Yes, there is a designer.




Behe. M. (1996).  Darwin's black box. New York: Touchstone Book.  This book brings up the problem of irreducibly complex organisms as evidence for intelligent design through his studies of the complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Behe received his Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978, is a professor of biological sciences at Pennsylvania's Lehigh University

Bio-medicine.org   Punctuated equilibrium.   The article is about punctuated equilibrium Retrieved April 15, 2009 from http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-definition/Punctuated_equilibrium/

Darwin. C. (1859). The origin of species. NY. New American Library.  The book is about  the theory of evolution.  Darwin had a Bachelor of Arts degree. 

Gallup. (2009) On darwin's birthday, only 4 in 10 believe in evolution. Retrieved March  12, 2009 from http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe- Evolution.aspx

Giertych Maciej (1995) Professor of genetics says 'No!' to evolution.  Answers in Genesis  Retrieved April 15, 2009 from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/genetics.asp  the article is about  problems the evolutionists face in the area of genetics.   Maciej Giertych received  his Bachelors Degree and Masters Degree at Oxford University and his Ph.D. at  The University of Toronto.  He was also a professor at various universities in  Poland.

Humphrey, Russell.  (2005). Evidence for a young earth.  Answers in Genesis.  Retrieved March 26, 2009.  http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp  The   article is about the evidence for a young earth.  Russell Humphrey received his  B.S from Duke University, and his Ph.D from The University of Louisiana in  physics in 1972.

Linder, Douglas (n.d.). State v. john scopes ("the monkey trial")  This article is about the  Scopes Monkey Trial. The author received his B.A. from Gustavus Adolphus  College, and received his J.D. from Stanford Law School.  Retrieved March 23,  2009 from  http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/scopes/EVOLUT.HTM

Menton. D. (2008). Did dinosaurs turn into birds? Answer in Genesis.  Menton has a  B.A from Mankato State University and a Ph.D from Brown University in cell  biology.  Retrieved March 13, 2009 from  http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/did-dinosaurs-turn-   into-birds

Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary (2009). Macroevolution.  Retrieved March 23,  2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/macroevolution.

Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary. (2009) Microevolution. Retrieved March 23. 2009   from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/microevolution

United States Department of the Interior.  (n.d.) The age of the earth.   A geological  survey  on the age of the earth.  Retrieved March 26 from  http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth.pdf

Wile. J. & Durnell. M. (1998). Exploring creation with biology Cincinnati, OH.   Apologia Educational ministries.  Dr. Wile has a Ph.D. from the University of  Rochester and  B.S. in chemistry. Dr. Wile has taught in University of Rochester,  Indiana University, Ball State University and The Indiana Academy for Science.    He also authored ten textbooks for use in homeschooling.

Virginia Tech Review panel.  (n.d.). This is a compilation by the skadden arps for the  Virginia Tech review.  Retrieved March 13, 2009 from  http://www.vtreviewpanel.org/report/report/30_APPENDIX_L.pdf




ClassesAboutBeliefArticlesAre You Saved?LinksStoreContact

Donate to the Creation Science Academy:

(For tax purposes: Creation Science Academy is NOT a non-profit organization).

Sign up for the Creation Science Academy's Newsletter:


This website is copyrighted 2009 by the Creation Science Academy.