Concerning the issue of origins, the public education system has promoted Darwinian evolution as a fact for decades. Design is a matter of faith, they say, but evolution is science. At least that is the assertion. But is that true? Hardly. Endorsing evolution as Darwin conceived of it requires herculean faith, while Design is just a rational, reasonable deduction based on the evidence. Yes, faith is involved but it is a reasonable faith.
In his influential work, On the Origin of Species, Darwin set forth two critical catalysts that simply must be true if his idea holds water. If either one or both of these catalysts are disproven, then his theory falls apart like a house of cards. So, what were these catalysts? First, Darwin imagined a simple cell. For his origin hypothesis to be possible he needed the cell to be basic, rudimentary, simple. It had to be something so primitive that it might have possibly erupted by chance under the right conditions. However, today we know that there is nothing simple about a cell. Indeed, cells are vastly complex and sophisticated. They are meticulously packaged microscopic factories replete with reams of genetic coding, instructions, information, and machinery. Referring to a cell as simple is a little like calling the Grand Canyon a pothole. The term “simple cell” is a misnomer of astronomical proportions.
So how complex is a cell? A typical human cell, of which there are roughly 100 trillion in each human body, contains over 6 billion pieces of genetic coding and instructions. And, they all have to be precisely sequenced, or the cell dies. Talking about billions of anything is difficult to grasp–it’s just so vast in scope. So, let’s try to make it a bit more comprehensible. Let’s compare it to something more familiar. Consider the Encyclopedia Britannica for instance. Most people would agree that the Britannica contains a lot of information. The most recent edition is 30 volumes. In those volumes one finds about 20 thousand pages and upon those pages is roughly 45 million words. All those words are organized into articles. The Britannica contains over 40,000 articles written by scholars from across the globe. Wow! That is a lot of information–carefully organized and logically set forth. Now think about this fact–the Encyclopedia Brittanica –all of it–contains less than 1 percent of the technical information one finds in a single cell! And, it is certain that not one sane person would believe even for a second that the Encyclopedia Britannica was the product of chance. Absurd. Obviously, it was designed. With how much greater certainty may reason conclude the same thing about the cell. Darwin’s first catalyst, the simple cell, is utterly defeated by the evidence.
So, what was his second catalyst? Darwin hoped that over time archaeology would discover transitional forms in the fossil record. He imagined that life evolved slowly over millions of years and that archaeologists would discover mountains of hybrid forms, which simply must exist if his vision of origins is correct. After all, there needs to be a lot of transitional forms going from an ant to an elephant or from a minnow to a blue whale! But his hopes have been disappointed. Archaeologists have been digging a long time. They have moved a lot of dirt. Yet, not one verifiable transitional form has been discovered. Indeed, one finds a lot of fascinating, surprising, even shocking forms in the record. But there is no evidence of ascension from one species to another. What does one find? According to the eminent scholar Stephen Gould, former Harvard Professor now deceased, one finds two things that are characteristic of the fossil record. First, one observes stasis. Stasis simply means that species stay pretty much the same. So, a species or a “kind” appears in the fossil record. If one took the time to trace that species all the way throughout the evidence, one would find minor changes along the way and sometimes extinction, though obviously not always. But extinction rather than evolution is the rule of the rocks.
Minor variation of species is commonly observed in real life and in the fossil evidence. Consider the dog kind or the cat kind or the horse kind, etc. There are all kinds of dogs and cats and horses, but they remain locked within their species. Variation within kinds is built in design. It permits adaptability and promotes survivability. But it has limits. One species never transforms into another species. The fossil evidence makes that conclusion clear. Genesis 1:24-25 states this principle well before the shovels proved it, noting that all creatures would reproduce after their own “kind.” Scripture is quite emphatic about this, stating it five times in just two verses. The first thing that is characteristic about the fossil evidence according to Gould is that species stay about the same with only minor variation.
The second thing that is characteristic of the evidence is sudden appearance. This completely refutes the Darwinian claim of gradual appearance of forms over millions of years via hybrids. That is what Darwin imagined. The science contradicts his fiction. Life appeared suddenly. The Cambrian Explosion indicates that life arrived fully formed, complex, sophisticated, and complete. No ancestral precursors are found in the pre-Cambrian strata. There is no sign of gradual development. They just appear. One secular scholar candidly admitted that to the unbiased mind it appears someone just put them there. Indeed, that is exactly what the evidence suggests. The legal scholar Philip Johnson analyzed the fossil evidence for himself, observing it from the perspective of a jurist. He concluded that if evolution is the change of one species into another species, then the outstanding characteristic of the fossil record is the lack of evidence for evolution. It simply does not exist. Darwin’s second catalyst of transitional forms in the fossil record is a complete phantom–a fairy tale.
All the failures of evolution lend credibility to Design. The complexity of the cell and of life more broadly requires the presence of a designer. It is axiomatic–self-evident. To accept the chance formation of a cell is akin to believing that the works of Shakespear or Beethoven’s symphonies were the result of an ink splatter precipitated by a lightning strike at the Guttenberg Press. Ridiculous. Precisely. Because everyone knows that if you have a masterpiece, somewhere in the background, you have a master who brilliantly fashioned it. That is reality. Full stop. Period. Additionally, the sudden appearance of life infers the work of a Creator. How else could these forms have appeared out of nothing?
So, if evolution is as bereft of evidence as this article asserts, why do so many people still believe it? That is a good question. I imagine part of the reason is because they have been told that it’s true by someone they respect–a teacher, a professor, a friend. I suspect that for a lot of other people their commitment to it is emotional rather than strictly intellectual. If it was all about critical thinking, logic, and evidence, I think most people would abandon it as a hopeless piece of unserious fiction. But there is a lot more involved. Darwin serves as a kind of sedative for some people; it calms their nerves. They do not want to believe that they are accountable to a Divine Being. Darwin made atheism fashionable (which is the only reason it was ever seriously entertained in the first place). So, rather than accept the obvious conclusion that Design is true, they cling to a myth that allows them to sleep peacefully at night.
One hundred years ago, Clarence Darrow and the ACLU took Creation (Design) to court. In the Scopes Case, they argued that Creation was unscientific, deeply biased, and autocratic. They just wanted evolution to be taught next to Creation. Sounds fair. Today, the same allegations leveled against Creation in 1925 can be justifiably charged against evolution in 2025. It is not science; it is a philosophy and a highly prejudicial one. It is autocratic and will brook no rivals, probably because of its flimsy evidence. May God help the student who has the audacity to ask questions or argue for an alternative view of origins. Such a hero will likely be marginalized, mocked, and ridiculed.
It happened to me as a graduate student at a State University. I was a well-credentialed senior pastor in my forties when my stance on Creation was denigrated during a graduate seminar. The professor and I respected each other and the assault did not last long. But it happened. And, if it can happen to an adult professional with a pair of graduate degrees and a professional doctorate, is there any doubt it can happen far more virulently and viciously to others who are less well-equipped to withstand it, especially to high school and middle school students held captive by their biology teachers. So, who will challenge this intolerant dogma? It certainly won’t be the ACLU or the bones of Darrow. Hopefully, school boards and state and local educational leaders will have the fortitude to stand up for fairness, critical thinking, and the quest for truth in the classroom. It is not hyperbole to suggest that the future of America and America’s children hangs in the balance.
Best wishes,
RFS, PhD