A very interesting article appeared recently in The Guardian (a UK publication), titled “Do we need a new theory of evolution?” The subtitle read, “A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul. Their opponents have dismissed them as misguided careerists—and the conflict may determine the future of biology.” So what’s this all about?
Well, the article opens up,
Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs rests upon the theory of natural selection.
The writer then summarizes what most of us are very familiar with from school and the media:
If a creature with poor eyesight happens to produce offspring with slightly better eyesight, thanks to random mutations, then that tiny bit more vision gives them more chance of survival. The longer they survive, the more chance they have to reproduce and pass on the genes that equipped them with slightly better eyesight. Some of their offspring might, in turn, have better eyesight than their parents, making it likelier that they, too, will reproduce. And so on. Generation by generation, over unfathomably long periods of time, tiny advantages add up. Eventually, after a few hundred million years, you have creatures who can see as well as humans, or cats, or owls.
But is this really what happened? Well, according to the article, a growing number of scientists say such a story is “crude and misleading,” with one saying the current evolutionary idea “has so far fallen flat”:
For one thing, it starts midway through the story, taking for granted the existence of light-sensitive cells, lenses and irises, without explaining where they came from in the first place. Nor does it adequately explain how such delicate and easily disrupted components meshed together to form a single organ. And it isn’t just eyes that the traditional theory struggles with. “The first eye, the first wing, the first placenta. How they emerge. Explaining these is the foundational motivation of evolutionary biology,” says Armin Moczek, a biologist at Indiana University. “And yet, we still do not have a good answer. This classic idea of gradual change, one happy accident at a time, has so far fallen flat.”
But these “reforming” (or “revolutionary,” depending on who you ask) biologists recognize there are huge problems with the current evolutionary model, that it fails to take into account much of what we’ve learned in biology in the last few decades, and, quite simply, that it doesn’t really explain how life in all its complexity got here!
Now these biologists aren’t saying life didn’t arise by naturalistic processes or that evolution isn’t the driving force that created all life—they certainly haven’t become creationists of any kind! But these “reforming” (or “revolutionary,” depending on whom you ask) biologists recognize there are huge problems with the current evolutionary model: that it fails to take into account much of what we’ve learned in biology in the last few decades, and, quite simply, doesn’t really explain how life in all its complexity got here! The article explains,
There are certain core evolutionary principles that no scientist seriously questions. Everyone agrees that natural selection plays a role, as do mutation and random chance. But how exactly these processes interact – and whether other forces might also be at work – has become the subject of bitter dispute. “If we cannot explain things with the tools we have right now,” the Yale University biologist Günter Wagner told me, “we must find new ways of explaining.”
But should these “new ways of explaining” include leaning harder into naturalism and the idea that life is the result of random chance processes . . . or should it involve looking to the eyewitness account of creation found in the Word of God? (I would argue they definitely should be looking to God’s Word for answers!)
I would like to add that it’s a very exciting time to be a creation scientist! Researchers who start with the true history found in God’s Word are making shocking (well, shocking to the evolutionary community anyway!) discoveries—some of which are only possible because the researcher starts with the biblical timeline of thousands, not millions, of years.
One example is Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson’s recent work with DNA. He’s discovered the “Rosetta stone” of human history, locked away inside the male-inherited Y-chromosome. His research is fascinating and has the potential to revolutionize what we thought we knew about history. You can read more about it in his brand-new book, Traced, or by viewing a series of interviews I did with him on the preliminary research back in 2020 or a new series he’s been recording on his new book. It’s truly jaw-dropping information!
But evolutionary biologists are going to continue to be frustrated in their attempts to explain life’s origins because they have the wrong framework. Mutations, epigenetics, “plasticity,” natural selection, cultural evolution—none of these processes are going to adequately explain how something as complex and delicate as the human eye (which works in symphony with the brain and more!) could form, because it’s the handiwork of the Creator God, not random chance.
And it’s worth noting that these evolutionists can only start “midway through the story” because they can’t explain where the information needed to create new features comes from. New information (like what is found in the DNA of every living creature) isn’t the result of chance processes—information always comes from other information—and ultimately a mind. There’s no known naturalistic process that can create brand-new functioning information—and that’s because there isn’t one to find.
God created all life, and we can use the history he’s given us in his Word as a pair of glasses through which we can properly view his creation.
And remember, while evolutionary models will continue to change, God’s Word never changes, and observational science confirms the Bible’s account of origins over and over again.
Today is the six-year anniversary of the Ark Encounter (wow! Praise the Lord!). I filmed a video this morning on the Ark grounds in honor of the anniversary. I encourage you to watch that video below:
The item from The Guardian was discussed yesterday on Answers News with cohosts Dr. Jennifer Rivera, Rob Webb, and Bryan Osborne. Answers News is our twice-weekly news program filmed here at the Creation Museum and broadcast on my Facebook page and the Answers in Genesis Facebook page. We also covered the following topics:
Be sure to join us each Monday and Wednesday at 2 p.m. (ET) on my Facebook page or the Answers in Genesis Facebook page for Answers News. You won’t want to miss this unique news program that gives science and culture news from a distinctly biblical and Christian perspective.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.
PETA recently asked ChatGPT (an artificial intelligence chatbot) to rewrite the book of Genesis and make it a “vegan interpretation.”
Nearly 1 in 3 Canadians hope the government will allow those experiencing poverty or homelessness to end their life with the assistance of a doctor.
Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ.