|History, Science and the Facts
History is a chronological record of past events. It is based on the testimony of human observers of the actual events, preserved in various forms, such as books, articles, letters, diaries, birth certificates, obituaries, business and government documents, etc. Evolutionary theory proposes a history of life on the earth for which there is no human testimony. The data for this "history" consist of fossil remains and traces and geological structures in the earth's crust. These data have over the past two centuries been interpreted to tell a story of the gradual change of living organisms from simple to complex, from cells to scientists, during some billions of years. Students are led to believe that the fossils prove this "history" actually occurred and that evolution is a scientific theory which facts have proved to be correct. Is this really the case, or has the public been misled? No humans observed evolution taking place in the past, and they cannot reproduce evolution in the present. But do the fossils prove it did indeed happen?
If evolution from cells to scientists really took place, what should the fossils show? They should show numerous complete sequences of intermediate fossil types leading from, say, scaly reptile to feathered bird, or from invertebrate worm to backboned fish. Such sequences of fossil forms documenting the process of evolution change should be found systematically in the fossil record, connecting all of the different kinds of plants and animals, all the way from amoeba to man. Some of these sequences would be expected to be missing because by chance the fossils were not formed, preserved, or found. On the other hand, if the different kinds of plants and animals did not evolve but were created, the fossil record should display gaps systematically separating each created kind of plant or animal from all other kinds. So what does the fossil record show, series of intermediate types, or gaps?
Scientists Certify the Gaps
We will now quote from the published works of scientists who believe in evolution, but who testify that gaps are found systematically through the fossil record.
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (J.M. Dent, London, 1972), p. 441.
T. Neville George, Science Progress, vol. 48, Jan. 1960, p. 3.
Stephen Jay Gould (Harvard Univ.), Natural History, vol. 86, June-July, 1977, pp. 22, 24.
E.J.H. Corner, in Contemporary Botanical Thought, MacLeod and Cobley, eds. (Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh and London, 1961), p. 96.
Steven M. Stanley (Johns Hopkins Univ.), Macroevolution (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1979), p. 39.
This is just a very small sampling of literally hundreds of quotations found in publications by evolutionary scientists who admit that fossils cannot prove evolution to be a fact of earth history. And note that Charles Darwin was aware of this problem when he published his book in 1859. After more than a century of fossil-hunting, the problem is even worse than in Darwin's day. The gaps are thoroughly documented. Dem bones are not connected.
Our conclusion, then, is that fossils may be grouped together into different kinds of plants and animals which cannot be shown by fossil intermediates to have originated by evolution from other previously existing kinds. And this fact fits with the first chapter of Genesis which tells us that God created the various "kinds" to reproduce "after their kinds," not to evolve into new kinds.
To get around the fossil gap problem, some scientists since 1972 have been promoting a new approach called "punctuated equilibrium." According to this theory a particular species remained relatively unchanged for a long time, but suddenly a new kind evolved, so rapidly that the intermediate fossils were not preserved in sufficient numbers to be found. Well, evolutionists can choose Darwin's slow, gradual evolution or the new idea of rapid(punctuated) evolution, but they must admit that, slow or rapid, they still lack fossil evidence to prove that the evolutionary change actually occurred.
The Bat, the Shrew, and the Incredible, Impossible "Brew"
If bats evolved, from what did they evolve? Would you believe, the tree shrew? Tree shrews are little mousy creatures, some of which hunt for insects in trees Madagascar. An official candidate for the ancestor of bats is the tree shrew! So, of course, there is some fossil evidence for this remarkable evolutionary transition? No, not a single bone. In fact, what is said to be the most ancient bat fossil is essentially identical in all important features with a modern bat. There is not a trace of fossil evidence for any intermediate forms.
Thus, for the history of the supposed evolution of bats we are forced to use our imagination. There was this little shrew that yearned to catch the insects that got away because they could fly. Some shrews were born with slightly longer finger bones in the front feet. For some unknown reason these longer fingers were preserved by natural selection. They imparted an unknown advantage to tree shrews. Generation by generation, by chance mutation and natural selection, the finger bones became longer, and flaps of skin appeared between them. After many generations the shrew had become a bat and flew away. Isn't it great what mutations and natural selection can do? We can be sure of this, because bats exist!
But let's think about the little animal half-way evolved to his first flight. Shall we call him a "shrat" or a "brew." His finger bones are hanging down to his ankles, so he can no longer run on all fours. Thus he must walk on his two hind feet. But they are well along to becoming bat's feet, adapted not to running and climbing, but to hanging upside-down in caves and belfries. There are loose flaps of thin skin between his fingers, but his "wings" are not yet evolved far enough to permit him to fly. So he can no longer run like a quadruped, nor can he yet fly. He might try to be a biped, but his feet are no longer suited for any kind of walking. The fact is, he can't even live, for no self-respecting insect would dream of being caught by this cripple! This is a logically impossible creature, and that which is impossible can never have existed. This is why no such intermediate fossils have every been found, for imaginary, logically impossible creatures do not leave fossils in rocks.
Which name is better for the imaginary creature half-way evolved from tree shrew to bat--shrat or brew? I vote for brew, because anybody who really believes that he ever existed must have been drinking too much brew.
What is the evolutionary explanation for the absence of the shrat or brew in the fossil record? Well, supposedly, the evolution from shrew to bat occurred in a small isolated portion of the shrew population. The process of change was so rapid in geological terms and the population so small that exceedingly few fossils were formed, so we have never been able to find any of them. And once the bat had evolved, he was so well adapted to his batty life style that bats have not had to evolve anything really new for 40 million years! Now this is what makes evolutionary theorizing such great fun. The theory is so flexible that it can be stretched and twisted to fit almost any observed evidence--or lack thereof. If the theory spinner is allowed free rein for his imagination to fill in the gaps in the evidence, it all seems so obvious--to the "true believers." And since the gaps are filled with imaginations and it all supposedly happened in the distant past, there is no way by observation or experiment to prove that the imagination is false.
But if the critics are allowed to be logical, the shrat and the brew must go. It is so much better to be logical and believe that the bat was designed and created by God, which is what the Bible teaches. There is scientific advantage in believing the Word of God. After all, He was there from the very beginning.
Table of Contents / Previous Essay / Next Essay