by Marc Hays
Following
is a collection of passages from Wile and Durnell’s, Exploring Creation with Biology. Classical Conversations uses the Apologia series of textbooks for their “Research Strands” through high school. I grow increasingly thankful for the fine work Apologia has done by providing our high school students with these invaluable science texts.
These quotes are from Module 9: “Evolution: Part Scientific Theory, Part Unconfirmed Hypothesis.”
“The lack of intermediate links was the most vexing problem that Darwin had with his hypothesis. In fact, in his book, he stated:
Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide than they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this not having been affected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which can be raised against my views. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th ed, {New York, NY: Collier Books, 1962}, 462)
“Well, what of these missing links? Has paleontology uncovered them? The answer to that is an unequivocal no. Read, for example the words of Dr. David Raup, the curator of the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History and an expert on the fossil record.
Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded…ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information. (David Raup, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 50:25, 197 – emphasis added)
“Since Dr. Raup’s quote is more than 20 years old, you might wonder whether paleontology has discovered anything in the past two decades to make the situation better for macroevolution. The answer is a clear and convincing no. Consider for example, this summary of the state of paleontology in regard to macroevolution:
…according to Darwin…the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved…Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species. (Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins, [New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1999], 89)
“Now think about this for a minute. The hypothesis of macroevolution tries to explain something about earth’s past. Since no one was around back then to tell us whether or not macroevolution actually happened, it is necessary to look for data that either support or contradict the hypothesis. Well, if you’re looking for data about earth’s history, where is the first place you would look? You would look in the fossil record! What does the fossil record say? It says that macroevolution never happened! Do you see what we mean when we say that scientists don’t belive in macroevolution today because of evidence? If the fossil record (the main place you look for information about earth’s past) shows no evidence for macroevolution, scientists simply should not believe in it.” (Wile & Durnell, Exploring Creation with Biology, 2nd Edition, [Anderson, IN: Apologia Educational Ministries, 2005], 274-275)
Wile & Durnell then point out that Schwartz and Raup are pointing out the lack of evidence for Darwin’s transitional forms in order to posit the notion of “punctuated equilibrium.” This spin on evolutionary theory tries to reinterpret macroevolution so that the lack of evidence for evolution becomes the evidence that evolution occurred. The idea being that transitional forms are by their nature short-lived, and therefore missing from the fossil record.
Or in other words, “the macroevolutionary emperor has no clothes, so we thought we’d cover him up with some fresh expert opinion.”
This is not intended to be the answer to the hypothesis of macroevolution, but this can serve as fodder for discussion with many people in our society. If they’re well-read, then they may have a reply, but I daresay many people in our culture are tickled pink to remain Darwinian, without any punctuated nuances. Their belief in evolution may make them feel better about their personal disbelief in the God who created them, but it does so based on their own religious presuppositions, not on any sure footing in the fossil record. Their faith may be in science, but their god has failed them.
(Advertisement: If you’re looking for a fantastic high school science curriculum, look no further. Check out the Apologia series here.)
<>
