Scientific Difficulties of the Evolution Theory
Bible-believing people object to the teaching of the theory of evolution because it contradicts true science and God's account of Creation. This chapter provides scientific information as a strong
reason for not believing in evolution and for objecting to evolution as a "fact".
The student needs to learn what all leading scientists already know-that the theory of evolution has never been proven as a fact. The student also ought to be told that this theory is
encumbered with serious difficulties. Yet, many authors who know this still make rash assertions as to the "fact" of evolution.
One high school textbook reads, "All reputable biologists have agreed that evolution of life on earth is an established fact."¹ Another textbook used nationally reads, "Biologists are
convinced that the human species evolved from non-human forms."² Many students have come to accept such statements without question. But the truth of the matter is far from what is asserted in
the above quotations. Not all scientists, not all biologists, accept the statement that "evolution is an established fact" For example. Dr. W. R. Thompson, who was for many years director of the
Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control in Ottawa, Canada, and a world-renowned biologist, wrote in his fore-word to the 1956 edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species, published in the
Darwinian Centennial Year as apart of the Everyman's Library Series:
As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists
because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about
evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation, where men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to defend scientifically, much
less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credibility with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in
Dr. G. A. Kerkut, professor of physiology and biochemistry at the University of Southampton, England, and himself an evolutionist, states:
This theory can be called the General Theory of Evolution and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a
working hypothesis. The answer [to the problem of evolution] will be found by future experimental work and not by dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because
there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.4
Kerkut's book caused considerable anguish in the evolutionist camp. John T. Bonner, a bona fide evolutionist, wrote in review of Kerkur's book:
This is a book with a disturbing message; it points to some unseemly cracks in the foundation. One is disturbed because what is said gives us the uneasy feeling that we
knew it for a long time deep down but were never willing to admit this even to ourselves. It is another one of those cold uncompromising situations where the naked truth and human nature travel in
different directions. The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence of invertebrate phyla. We do not know whether Protozoa occurred once, or twice,
or many times.... We have all been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we
have failed to follow our own sound advice.5
In the above five quotations, the last three indicate clearly that the first two were simply assertions void of virtue or fact. Evolution is not an "established fact" accepted without dispute by
scientists. The author or teacher who so states is either ignorant of the facts in the case or is seeking to hide them from his students. The world-famous evolutionist Steven Gould wrote,
"Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths."6 Student--Keep this in mind! There is a "great
divergence of opinion among biologists" as to evolution. This is because "the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion".
We agree with Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a distinguished biologist, who wrote: The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in "hard"
science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds.... The point, however, is that the doctrine of evolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits,
but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living beings created themselves, which is in essence a metaphysical claim. This in itself implies, however, that
the theory is scientifically unverifiable. Thus, in the final analysis, evolutionism is in truth a metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb.7
To read the rest of this chapter please order your copy of HAS GOD SPOKEN? today.
¹ B.B. Vance and D.F. Miller, Biology for You, J.B. Lippincott Co., 1950, p.580.
² Biological Science: Molecule to Man, Blue Version, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1951, p.414
³ Charles Darwin, "Foreword" by Dr. W.R. Thompson, Origin of the Species, Everyman's Library Series, 1967
4 G.A. Kerkut, The Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press, 1960, p.157
5 "Review of Kerkut's Book", American Scientist, Vol. 49, June 1961, p. 240.
6 Stephen J. Gould, The Mismeasure of Man, New York Review of Books, Oct 22,1981.
7 Wolfgang Smith, Teihardism and the New Religion, Tan Books & Pub., 1988, pp. 9,242.