What does the Theory of Evolution Explain?

Author: Mirosław Rucki,
Love One Another! 17/2010 → Science and Faith

The theory of evolution claims to be a scientific theory that explains the world around us. The illogicality and inconsistency of these explanations are therefore somewhat surprising.

For example, the media have recently trumpeted the discovery of the “missing link” between man and the ape. Apparently the prosimian in question has fingernails and a few bones that resemble human ones. We are told that scientists have been searching for this link for 150 years, and now we know for certain that Darwin’s theory is true.

The problem is that despite external similarities between man and the ape — genetic ones as well — the two could not have sprung from the same ancestor. Two hundred years ago one might be forgiven for deducing mutual or common origins from external similarities. Today, however, such a thesis is untenable, since modern science tells us that it is the information-bearing genes that determine the growth of organs, their function, and their external appearance. External similarities do not at all go hand in glove with genetic similarities, and genes are resistant to most external environmental conditions such as temperature change, air pressure, and humidity. As for mutations, we know that as a rule these are neutral, and that when they are not neutral, they are generally negative; that is, they are associated with a loss of information.

Moreover, even a high school student will tell you that a mechanism exists to counteract mutations; that is to say, the genetic information is protected. If the theory of evolution were a scientific theory explaining the world, it would also have to explain the mechanisms by which new species are created. But such mechanisms are unknown, and our knowledge of the role of genes as information bearers directs us to think in terms of the “informational” aspect of the existence of living organisms. For, if in the past we could believe that the giraffe stretched its neck for grazing — and that is why it has a long neck — now we have to explain how the giraffe, by stretching its neck for grazing, encoded this information in its genes for future generations. And since we have no knowledge of mechanisms by which living organisms on our planet encode information in their genes, it is highly probable that these simply do not exist, for scientists know quite enough about genes and their functioning to be able to state unequivocally that they constitute an informational code — protected and invariable — encrypted by Someone from the very beginning, and that every mutation results in a gap in this code, a loss of information, genetic diseases, and the extinction of the species — and not its development or transition into a new one. Thus the theory of evolution betrays a glaring inconsistency: on the one hand, it tells us that genes constitute a “fluid mass” that changes under the influence of environmental conditions — a constant mutation directed toward some new form of life; on the other hand, it tells us that genes are bearers of encoded information that determine and limit the functionality of a given individual. What then does this theory explain with its hypothetical transitional forms, whose “confirmation” consists in a fingernail or two and a few bones of a fossilized ape?

I have before me an article citing the studies of world-famous scientists — including advocates of the theory of evolution (Barnes, Calow, Olive, Golding) and independent researchers (Valentine, Erwin, and Jabłonowski) — who have determined that not a single new form of life has appeared on the planet for over 500 million years. I quote: “Looking at the paleontological record, we can state with certainty that all the presently known phyla evolved about 525 million years ago. Since then, despite the half-billion years of subsequent evolutionary development, not a single new phylum or a single new body plan has appeared.” This fact alone, notwithstanding the evolutionist frame of reference, should be enough to convince us that the whole theory is falling apart, since for 10% of the time anticipated for evolution to occur (4.5 billion years — even this is too little!), no evolution has taken place. What evidence is there, then, that it occurs at all? It is harder in this case to prove that evolution occurs than that it does not occur.

I recently received a letter from “a Rationalist” (he did not give his name). He says in the letter that, “it is more probable that life on earth arose spontaneously, by accident, than by an act of creation by God.” In this connection I propose we set a very simple problem of probability concerning the origin of life.

To calculate the probability of God creating the world, we must accept that there are two possibilities: either God exists or He does not. The probability is therefore 1 : 1 — either He exists or He does not. If God exists then again we have two possibilities: either He created the world or He did not. Therefore, leaving aside the question of evidence and cause and effect relationships, the pure probability that God exists and that He created the world is 1 : 22; that is, 1 : 4. There may be some who think this probability value too low, but the question that interests us is: is the spontaneous appearance of life more probable?

The complexity of the existence of life is mind-boggling. For this reason, I will consider but a tiny element of it: hemoglobin, which constitutes the basis of our existence. Every one of us has in his or her blood millions of molecules of hemoglobin. Each such molecule is made up of 574 amino acids arranged in a specific sequence. To form hemoglobin our organism uses twenty types of amino acids. Now let us calculate the probability of 574 amino acids of twenty types arranging themselves randomly to form one molecule of hemoglobin with its specific amino acid sequence. So, if we had to assemble a two-car train with cars painted twenty different colors, we would have 20 × 20 combinations. A three-car train would require 20 × 20 × 20 combinations. To assemble a train consisting of 574 cars in a specific sequence through a random selection of colors, we would have to try 20574 combinations. Thus, the probability of a single hemoglobin molecule arranging itself spontaneously is 1 : 20574. Needless to say, this value is incomparably lower than 1 : 4.

Bear in mind that fifteen billion years (such is the age of the universe according to the evolutionists) is of the order of magnitude of 1020 seconds. Thus, if we tried to assemble a hemoglobin “train” in fifteen billion years by randomly selecting a new combination of amino acids every second, we would not exhaust even a third of the possible combinations. But genes are considerably more complex than hemoglobin molecules. Thus it should be clear to anyone that even mutations occurring at a rate of one hundred a second could not possibly give rise to a single gene of a living organism. And yet even the evolutionists state that no “creative” mutations have occurred for over 500 million years. Where is the logic of this evolution and what is it supposed to explain? The words of the Book of Wisdom come to mind: “For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God, and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing him who is, and from studying the works did not discern the artisan….For from the greatness and the beauty of created things their original author, by analogy, is seen” (Wis 13: 1; 5).

It is clear that the theory of evolution is really nothing more than a hypothesis — one that has remained unsubstantiated since the day Darwin first advanced it 150 years ago. Every new discovery contradicts this theory. So why is it being propagated with such maniacal obstinacy, especially in the media? Why is it being passed off as fact, when there is no evidence for it? What does it explain when it fails to answer the basic question “how?” and thus reduces scientific inquiry to the level of vain philosophizing?”

Methinks all this is much more a matter of ideology than science. From the point of view of simple probability it is much more reasonable to accept the premise that God exists and created the world than to believe that it all arose by sheer accident. On the other hand, from a scientific point of view, the theory of “intelligent design,” which accepts the existence of God the Creator, is much more scientific and consistent. Supported by world-acclaimed scientists, it offers a much better explanation of our world than the antiquated and self-contradictory theory of evolution.

Mirosław Rucki

The above article was published with permission from "Love One Another!" in August 2016.

Read more Christian articles (English)

Top

Recommend this page to your friend!