Now You See It—Now You Don’t

For years evolutionists argued that science could demonstrate the truth of the story of evolution, in quotes like the following:

Actually, there is superabundant evidence for animals evolving under our eyes: British moths becoming darker since the Industrial Revolution (industrial melanization), insects evolving DDT resistance since World War II, malaria parasites evolving chloroquine resistance in the last two decades, and new strains of flu virus evolving every few years to infect us.1

The problem for evolutionists?

Christian apologetics ministries like Answers in Genesis have educated many Christians to the duplicitous tactics evolutionists have often employed, such as the false equivocation of natural selection with biological evolution and the difference between empirical/observational science and historical science. These people have woken up to the fact that there is zero evidence of animals evolving “under our eyes.”

And yet many “layperson evolutionists” persist in using these arguments, which even other evolutionists have debunked.

A Recent Example

A good example of this occurred recently on our Answers in Genesis–CA Facebook page, where a lady named Debbie (clearly an atheistic Bible skeptic) commented on one of our posts by declaring,

Evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt many times over. Ignoring it, denying it as you do, does not change the facts.

I then asked,

So evolution has been observed (proven)?

She said,

The peppered moth is one example. Peacocks and pesticide-resistant insects are two more. I can go on.

So I sent her the following reply:

Well, Debbie, you might want to look into what you believe is observational evidence for evolution somewhat further. For example, famous evolutionary biologist L. Harrison Matthews (writing in the foreword to the 1971 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species) said this about the peppered moth example you mentioned:

The experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia.

As for the pesticide resistance argument, more than 15 years ago, leading evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala wrote (Scientific American, September 1978, p. 57) that since 1947, “resistance to one or more pesticides has been reported in at least 225 species of insects and other arthropods. The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.”

What happened was simply that the resistant ones already present survived, while the others were killed.

The survivors passed on the genetic information for this resistance, which therefore became more common in subsequent generations. No new information arose—yet this is what evolution is supposed to be all about. (In fact, some information would have been lost as a result of nonresistant organisms being wiped out, as they would likely carry some genes not present in the survivors.)

So according to the testimony of leading evolutionists, both of these examples “do not show evolution in progress.” Yet years later, the same examples are still presented as top-ranking observational “evidence” for evolution.

Above you wrote, “Evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt many times over. Ignoring it, denying it as you do, does not change the facts.”

And yet the examples you gave have been debunked by leading evolutionists. This should give you pause and make you ask, “Why was I so confident these were examples of evolution? And are there are other things I believe that aren’t true?”

Growing up as an atheist myself, I was offended to learn that what I had been told were rock-solid examples of evolution (such as Piltdown Man, Haeckel’s embryo drawings, and peppered moths) were fraudulent. Even atheist evolutionist Dr. Jerry Coyne said finding out the peppered moth example wasn’t true was like learning Santa wasn’t real (see “Much Ado About Moths”).

To which she responded,

Man, you will always find people who do not agree with what is generally accepted.

Again 97% of the scientific world accepts evolution. You believe the 3%. I stick with the 97%. Good day. No further comment.

The fact is, the average layperson with just a little apologetics training can easily poke holes in such examples like those I quoted at the beginning of the article (and parroted by our visitor Debbie) and articulate how they are abject failures in demonstrating “evolution in action.” And because of the embarrassment of having to deal with the fallout, some of naturalism’s foremost promoters have changed tactics.

Evolutionists Pivot and Change Tactics

For example, fanatical atheist Richard Dawkins has come out and admitted,

Nobody has actually seen evolution take place over a long period, but they have seen the aftereffects, and the aftereffects are massively supported. It is like a case in a court of law where nobody can actually stand up and say I saw the murder happen, and yet you have got millions and millions of pieces of evidence which no reasonable person can possibly dispute.2

But of course, in a court of law, everyone is observing the same group of facts and interpreting it as evidence toward their own presuppositional position (innocent or guilty). And the facts we observe in nature make more sense when interpreted according to the biblical narrative than toward the story of evolution.

Adding more fuel to the fire, Dawkins has also said,

Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.3

Which is kind of like someone declaring they have the superpower of invisibility, which unfortunately only works when no one is looking at them.

Sight Unseen?

So which is it? Can evolution be observed or not? Honestly, the statement above is a bit of a stunner for the world’s leading atheistic evangelist to admit because Dawkins is the former chair of public understanding of knowledge of science at Oxford University.

If no one has seen evolution occurring in real time, it means it isn’t in the realm of empirical science (which is what Answers in Genesis has always taught) but rather historical science, where facts are open to various interpretations with the possibility of alternative explanations.

This is why you will almost always hear Answers in Genesis use the phrase “the story of evolution” rather than “the theory of evolution.” That is because legitimate scientific theories have observational experimentation that helps to verify them.

The “Hypothesis” of Evolution

Truthfully, with no observational experiment in support of it whatsoever, “evolution” should be described as a hypothesis at best.4 However, for those that have grown up in state-run schools promoting evolutionary indoctrination (like myself here in Canada), many evolution-believers (like Debbie) still think that “evolution is a fact” and has been observed.

An even better example comes from one of Richard Dawkins’ faithful supporter’s posts on his own website (RichardDawkins.net), who commented on Dawkins’ quote above (admitting no one has observed evolution). He actually critiqued Dawkins, saying he should have added that

many people have seen evolution over a short period, resulting in varieties or similar species, and no one has found any barrier preventing such changes from accumulating to form greater differences.5

Can you see how Dawkins’ “student” still believes the commonly cited proofs of “observed evolution” (such as the peppered moth, insects evolving DDT resistance, bacteria evolving, etc.) and that they demonstrate evolution has been observed while the “expert” admits it hasn’t been observed?6

And this has been happening for a while now.

Trying to Gaslight Creationists

Although it might be hard to believe, in 2008, the director of the National Center for Science Education, Dr. Eugenie Scott, criticized creationists in a presentation for (1) preferring direct observation to inferential explanation and (2) insisting evolutionists should provide observable evidence for their belief.7

You read that correctly! Instead of providing observational evidence of evolution happening, she declared that science doesn’t require direct observation and that evolutionary scientists can figure out what happened in the past based on observations in the present.8

And to make her point, she used a picture of a paint stripe overtop some cow dung stamped on a highway as an example of how we can logically infer from the evidence conclusions about the order of events never directly seen (i.e., it was obvious that the road existed before the cow dung on top of it, which in turn existed before the paint stripe that was placed over it).

But this idea of arguing from analogy is similar to what creationists have done for years now to support the unobserved historical events recorded in God’s Word. Except the examples we have used are a direct blow to the story of evolution rather than an obviously trivial example of cows “doing their thing” on highways.

Rock-Solid Reasoning

For example, when we see fossilized trees standing upright through several meters of sedimentary rock layers, we can logically assume the layers were laid down very quickly before the tree rotted away.9 Why? Because dead trees rot at the bottom, dry out at the top, and then fall over shortly after they die. Obviously, trees would not last standing up if it took several thousand years for sediments to build up around them.

Also, when we see unfossilized soft tissue (containing red blood vessels/cells, amino acid sequences, collagen, etc.) inside fossilized dinosaur bones, we assume they formed recently (perhaps thousands of years ago, but certainly not millions) because known chemical decomposition rates simply wouldn’t allow for soft tissue to last for 65 million+ years.10

And when you see something that has design features (like a motor, robot, etc.), you can logically assume there was a designer. So when we see similar but vastly more complicated things in nature like the ATP Synthase motor or the Kinesin motor protein, we assume they were created by a master designer.11

Similarly, because it’s our universal experience that whenever we see information in the form of a coded language system it has always originated through an intelligent mind,12 we can assume the most sophisticated code system we’ve ever seen (DNA) came from the most sophisticated mind we can imagine—God.

God’s Revelation Is Reliable

So for those evolutionists retreating into arguments from analogy, come on in, the water is warm. We welcome them to our world because it will likely prove to be quite damaging to their belief system, as all of the conclusions in the analogies above prove devastating to evolutionary presuppositions, as the average person can see.

They not only provide strong evidence against evolution’s required “millions of years” time frame but also support the Bible’s young-earth time frame and provide direct evidence of a Creator, such as Romans 1:20 describes:

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.