"Was Darwin Wrong?" - National Geographic - Jan 31, 2006 - response/letter by Randall F. More

January 31, 2006

Mr. David Quammen

c/o National Geographic Society
1145 17th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C.
U.S.A.
20036-4688

ATTENTION: Mr. David Quammen

RE: National Geographic – November 2004 "Was Darwin Wrong?"

I write in response to the aforementioned article.

I very much appreciate your up-front acknowledgement that evolution is a theory. Much of your article, however, states or implies that evolution is a fact.

Of course the theories with respect to relativity, planetary orbits, atom dynamics, and electrical physics have become universal laws but that is primarily because, firstly, there is universal acceptance by scientists and, secondly, the science is directly or indirectly both observable and repeatable. Neither of these conditions, however, is present with respect to the subject of our origins, not for evolution and not for creation (pp. 4, 6).

Sure, there is "honest confusion and ignorance among adult Americans" but that is primarily because they have not had the opportunity to understand the scientific support afforded to creation. It is also for this fundamental reason that intellectual thought with respect to BOTH theories, creation and evolution, should be encouraged through the teaching curriculum in the school system. It should be acknowledged from a scientific standpoint that BOTH creation and evolution are theories only and that is all they will ever remain. They do not conform to the scientific method as basically neither can be repeated nor observed. It is intellectually dishonest to think otherwise (p. 6).

Your article states that there is a "vertical column of geologic strata, laid down by sedimentary processes over the eons." This would all make sense except for the fact that nowhere on earth is there an actual geologic column. The geologic column is a theoretical and artificial construct. With such a construct, one can postulate all sorts of things but there is no substantiated basis (p. 12).

Just because Darwin wrote that "the embryo is the animal in its less modified state" and that state "reveals the structure of its progenitor" does not make any part of his statement a fact. God, in His infinite wisdom can have us transformed in utero into any shape, manner, or form in which He chooses for His own purpose. The in utero transformation is no more consistent with evolution than it is with creation (p. 13).

"Such a pattern of tiered resemblances - groups of similar species nested within broader groupings" is not a proof of anything. Again, it is an observation. With creation, one would also reasonably expect that there would be an abundance of similarities amongst His created works. With a Creator, one would reasonably expect significant commonality of features, design, and purpose (and one would also expect many very distinct differences as well). Again, noting tiered resemblances is an observation; it is not a proof of any one theory any more than another - not creation nor evolution (p.13).

"The number of shared characteristics between any one species and another indicates how recently those two species have diverged from a shared lineage." Shared characteristics say absolutely nothing about time. Any statement about time is an assumption only. With creation, one would expect innumerable shared characteristics and that is exactly what is observed (p. 13).

Contrary to your assumption, morphology does not substantiate evolution. With common ancestry, one would expect more commonality, not less. Any "hierarchy of categories," once again, is an observation, not a proof of anything. Just because you see monkeys in one area of a zoo, alligators in another, and fish in another is an observation only and such an observation is no less consistent with a Creator God. As a matter of fact, if we all evolved from the same muck and mire, one would actually expect to find us all in the same cage at the zoo as we'd all just be part of one continuum progressing from the first amoebae (p. 13).

"All plants and fungi, as well as animals, have nuclei within their cells. All living organisms contain DNA and RNA." So what? Again, that is an observation which one would also expect with creation (p. 13).

"The concept of homologues - that is, superficially different but fundamentally similar versions of a single organ or trait, shared by dissimilar species" is exactly what one would expect with creation but certainly not with evolution. Regardless, similar to all other scenarios, if any such postulation is to be a proof for evolution, then it must be so to the exclusion of all other possibilities or theories, including that of creation, but that is not the case (p. 13).

Contrary to your assertion, all scientists do not acknowledge that Archaeopteryx is a "long-extinct bird-reptile." In fact, it is very much fully bird. It has fully-formed flying feathers and a brain with a large cerebellum and visual cortex consistent with that of a bird (p. 13).

"The parts of their strangely modified flowers...correspond to the flower parts on simpler plants, suggesting evolutionary change." Sure, yourself and Darwin may think that it "suggests" evolutionary change but that is all that it is, a suggestion. Such an observation should also lead one to understand that all the genetic coding ever needed for all variations was available at the moment of creation. A person may have brown eyes but remarkably that person has the capability to produce offspring with blue eyes and that is because all the genetic coding was available from the outset. It has absolutely nothing to do with evolution (p. 14).

Your article states that "vestigial characteristics are still another form of morphological evidence, illuminating to contemplate because they show that the living world is full of small, tolerable imperfections." Sure, it may appear that way but that is only until we have enough information to see the full picture. Forty years ago evolutionists believed that appendices and tonsils were two vestigial organs in humans until they found out that these organs serve very important and specific purposes. Because of their erroneous belief, many doctors were prone to extricate these so-called "vestigial" organs at a whim (p. 20).

You say that, "evolution by natural selection represented Darwin at his best - which is to say, scientific observation and careful thinking at its best." Natural selection has NOT resulted in the evolution of ANYTHING and certainly not a more complex life form. The impact of differing or changing environmental conditions results in speciation but this is NOT evolution. In the process of speciation, NO NEW genetic information is added to anything. A vast amount of genetic information was already available in the original species but some of that is actually lost in the process of speciation. This is exactly, however, what the creationist would predict in accordance with the generally accepted concept of "fixity of kinds" (p. 20).

It is true that "similarities of anatomy imply common origins" but that is exactly what one would expect with a common Creator. This assessment is certainly not unique to evolution (p. 21).

You say that the whalelike creature (Dorudon) had "useless little legs." There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the legs were useless. It is presumed that the legs were useless because of a prior supposition and because there appears to be no other information or explanation. As a matter of fact, if the premise was different, one would instead conclude quite to the contrary, that the tiny little legs were indeed extremely useful for some purpose. Just because we do not know the purpose does not mean that there was none (p. 25).

You say that, "illuminating but spotty, the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor." In what other science could there be virtually NO INFORMATION - only 0.1% of the facts available with 99.9% of it missing - and yet a conclusion is still formulated? That is ludicrous! In actuality, and ironically, most scientists, creationists and evolutionists alike, concede that there is, in fact, an overwhelming abundance of fossilized evidence. It is just that the evolutionist doesn’t like the evidence (p. 25).

Isn't it interesting that the evolutionists cannot find ANY transitional fossils? Evolutionists cannot find any transitional fossils which show a giraffe, for example, with shorter legs or a shorter neck as is expected with the evolutionary hypothesis. Any giraffe found in the fossil record is just like the giraffe that we all recognize today. In the fossil record, the sheep resemble sheep and the cows resemble cows. There are no intermediate forms of ANY animal found in the fossil record. This is completely consistent with the creationist’s concept of “fixity of kinds.”

With respect to the diversity on remote islands such as the Galapagos, "it seemed more logical than assuming they had been created and placed in the Galapagos individually." There are other reasonable and possible explanations with respect to diversity but assuming one of them because it "seems" more logical is not part of the scientific method when other explanations are equally valid (p. 26).

Even though "500 species (of flies) had acquired resistance to at least one pesticide," let's face it, they're still flies. No new genetic information has been added to the flies in question and in fact, some genetic information has been lost in the change to become more pesticide resilient (p. 30).

You say that "speciation, when a lineage splits into two species, is the major phase of evolutionary change." Speciation contributes nothing to the process of evolution. Speciation is no evidence of anything evolving. Speciation is NOT evolution. With speciation, ALL of the genetic coding for any adaptation is already present and available from the outset. As a matter of fact, speciation involves a loss of genetic information, not an increase in genetic information as would be required with evolution (p. 30).

One representative example of the impossibility of evolutionary development is the bat. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a small, mouselike creature whose forelimbs, or front toes, developed into wings by gradual steps. Imagine the process as the front toes grow longer and the skin begins to grow between them. The animal can no longer run without stumbling over the toes and yet the forelimbs are not long enough to function as wings. During most of the hypothetical transition stages, the poor creature would have limbs too long for running and too short for flying. There is no conceivable path for the bat wings to be formed in gradual stages. In fact, the animal would flop along hopelessly and helplessly and soon become extinct. The fossil record very clearly confirms this wherein there are NO transitional fossils leading upward to bats. Anything found in the fossil record resembling a bat is indeed identical to the bat as we know it today. Instead, we might consider that God designed this amazing animal perfect and complete from the outset! Is that just too simple or is the problem then that we would have to invoke a Creator? This is just one example outlining the impossibility of evolutionary ascent.

Living things cannot simply change piecemeal with a new organ here and a new limb there. Any organism is a fully integrated system and any isolated change in the system is almost invariably detrimental, not constructive. The interdependency of systems within an organism is recognized as irreducible complexity.

The eye constitutes an excellent example of irreducible complexity. The eye has no use at all unless all of its parts are fully formed and working together. Even a slight alteration destroys its function. How, then, could the eye evolve by slight alterations? Even Darwin conceded that the mere thought of trying to explain the eye gave him a "cold shudder."

Contrary to your assertion, the evidence for evolution is NOT overwhelming. It is overwhelming ONLY if you start with a bias and continue with that bias and ignore the real facts.

Contrary to your assertion, Charles Darwin, in fact, had NO "extraordinary commitment to intellectual honesty" whatsoever. Instead, he deliberately chose to believe something counter to God's revelation of Himself in His Word, the Bible, and then he intentionally and methodically set out to attempt to prove his notion. His conclusions were already prematurely prejudiced and predetermined by his atheistic worldview (p. 9).

One of the root problems is that evolutionists, in their search for answers, use a fallacious premise. Their construct is that if a THEORY (evolution) predicts an OBSERVATION and the OBSERVATION is then observed, then the THEORY (evolution) must be true. What they fail to acknowledge, however, is that such an OBSERVATION may also support, equally well, an ALTERNATE THEORY (creation).

You say that "the evidence for evolution is overwhelming." In actuality, upon examining all of the facts, there is no concluding evidence supporting evolution, but a very significant amount of genuine scientific support for creation (p. 4).

It is not that surprising that some people find the evolutionary theory unacceptable, as, contrary to your assertion, they do not feel that there is a "vast body of supporting evidence" (p. 6).

You say that "evolution is a beautiful concept, more crucial nowadays to human welfare, to medical science, and to our understanding of the world than ever before." From a scientific perspective, it should never be considered more than a concept, theory, unsubstantiated hypothesis, or conjecture. Implicit in your comment, human welfare, medical science, and our understanding of the world is contingent upon our understanding of our origins. This is true as the philosophy of our origins will inevitably determine what one believes concerning one’s destiny and the meaning and purpose life. The doctrine of origins is the foundation of every other doctrine. It is important to note that the theory of evolution is the philosophical foundation of all secular thought today. It is the platform from which socialism, communism, fascism, humanism, and determinism have been launched. All of these ideologies, with some being built upon the concepts of racism, are direct products of the Darwinian evolutionary doctrines of struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest (pp. 8-9).

Does it really matter what we believe regarding the subject of our origin? What we believe about our origin is truly fundamental to a complete and full understanding and appreciation of who we really are and the purpose of our being! Truthful answers to the questions of origin are important because our worldview, our philosophy of life, and our human behaviour are all related to such answers. How can we hope to raise children with any real moral accountability if we teach them that they are no more than the chance product arising out of the muck and slime of a primordial earth and that their ancestors are no more than monkeys and amoebae?

Every ideology which has majored in the struggle for supremacy of race, class, or other social group over others has been structured on the premise of evolution. The evolutionary philosophy is the intellectual basis of all anti-theistic systems. The philosophy served Hitler as the rationale for Nazism and anti-Semitism and it served Marx as the supposed scientific basis for communism. Hitler was devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for national policy, securing the destiny of his master race by organized slaughter.

When explored in all its fullness, one will find that science confirms with all integrity and truth the Creation account exactly as recorded in Scripture. Recognized by many as the greatest scientist of all time, Sir Isaac Newton remarked that, "This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." His observation is just as relevant today.

Even evolutionists will admit that scientists close ranks to present a false image of scientific certainty where none is warranted. Further, the dominance of Darwinism has nothing to do with scientific evidence. It is primarily related to a worldview perspective which rejects God.

I challenge you to research and write with the same vigour an article which outlines the scientific aspects rendering support to the creation model. Readers can then choose without prejudice the model which best explains our origins. This would be the true scientific approach.

As part of my own personal journey, I came to realize that if there was a God, and He was the God of the Bible, then He was also the God of all science and I knew that if that was the case then science and His Word would not contradict each other. I believe that there is nothing – absolutely nothing - about His Universe, His Creation, His Science, or His Word which is contradictory.

The very good news is that anyone can confirm this for himself! Something that the God of this Universe promises is that when we diligently seek Him, we will find Him. He says in His Word, "You will seek Me and find Me when you seek Me with all your heart" (Jeremiah 29:13). That is His promise and His promise is trustworthy!

The subject of our origins is one of the most challenging and contentious contemporary issues. Please know that I intend no disrespect or impertinence with any remark or comment. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Your acknowledgement, thoughts, and comments would be most welcome.

Yours truly

Randall F. More, P. Eng.

P.S. The numbers in parenthesis refer to the page numbers in the November 2004 National Geographic issue.