Bible Q & A

Why the Theory of Macro Evolution is Scientifically and Logically False

With any theory that hopes to be deemed scientific, one must be able to look for reasons to think it is a valid theory. The only "evidence" offered in support of macro evolutionary theory deals exclusively with micro evolution or adaptation. Adaptation is a proven fact. It is also a necessary characteristic of life on earth. If any organism could not adapt, it would not last long. The fact of adaptation cannot be extrapolated to the theory of macro evolution. One could easily extrapolate from such a well designed and universal characteristic as adaptation that a designer exists. That is all.

Just because the name "evolution" has been given to both micro and macro evolution doesn't make them necessarily related. If I called special creation "evolution," would it then be automatically proven by adaptation as macro evolution is? As I mentioned before, the evidence of micro evolution, or adaptation, goes a lot further to prove that a designer/creator exists than it does to prove macro evolutionary theory.

If the theory of macro evolution was valid, one would expect to find at least the following evidences for it:

• The fossil record should be littered with "missing links"
  
• Traits should gradually appear in the fossil record
  
• To allow further "evolution," every intermediate trait to develop must immediately be beneficial to the organism in which it appears

If the theory of macro evolution was not valid, then one would expect not to find the above.

The fossil record should be littered with "missing links"
The lack of evidence in the fossil record for the supposed gradual process of macro evolution has caused great consternation among scientists. So much so that a theory called "Punctuated Equilibrium" (or "Punk Eek" as it is affectionately called) had to be developed. Punk Eek basically says that evolution happens in spurts. Sort of like a Robin hatching from a Tyrannosaurus Rex egg. The evidence for Punk Eek fits special creation much better than it fits macro evolution, by the way. You will see that the evidence always seems to point toward special creation more so that it points toward macro evolution

Some evolutionary scientists claim Archaeopteryx as the salvation of gradual macro evolutionary theory. What they fail to admit is that we cannot find any fossils of Archaeopteryx with wings that are not already fully developed. Archaeopteryx is not a missing link but another creature that requires a link, and for which such a link cannot be found.

The Cambrian Explosion is but one example of animals suddenly appearing in the fossil record without any sign of gradual development through "missing links." It's almost as if some creator said, "Let there be..."

Traits should gradually appear in the fossil record
There are NO cases in the fossil record of the existence of creatures with half-formed legs or wings on their way to becoming fully formed appendage. Take a trilobite eye for example. Though a trilobite eye is probably as complex as a human eye, trilobites just suddenly appear in the fossil record with a working set of eyes. Where are all the trilobites with half-formed eyes? There should a million times as many of these, in various stages of development, as there are of trilobites with fully formed eyes.

There are so many such gaps in the fossil record that they cannot be explained away. If this were not true, evolutionists would not have had to come up with the "special creation," oops, I mean "Punctuated Equilibrium" theory I previously mentioned.

Over the years, you would think that the problem of the lack of intermediate traits found in the fossil record would be rectified or at least alluded to. They are not. Only fully formed and functional creatures are found, to the peril of macro evolutionary theory.

To allow further "evolution," every intermediate trait to develop must immediately be beneficial to the organism in which it appears
If this were not true, organisms would not be around to evolve fully. What benefit are half-formed wings and the loss of front legs? What about eyes that cannot see - and won't see for thousands of generations? What about lung-gills that can't breath air or water efficiently? Intermediate traits would never be beneficial, which goes against gradual improvement. Organisms with such traits would be immediately abolished by predators.

In Conclusion
I have listed but a few problems with macro evolutionary theory without getting into much detail. The more detail, the more absurd the theory of macro evolution looks. There are many more problems with the theory that I have not mentioned. I have not mentioned the total lack of evidence and biased fossil selection "scientists" have used to try to prove human macro evolution. I have not mentioned how possible "evolutionary" differences would be lost in breeding populations. I have not mentioned the impossibility of the natural formation of the mathematical code in almost every creature called DNA. I have not mentioned that things cannot evolve toward higher informational states. I did not mention the impossibility of life forming spontaneously in the first place. I did not mention the inferiority and limitations of a naturalistic approach to science making naturalism illogical and unscientific in the true sense of the word.

The only logical and scientific explanation for the design we see in the universe is that a designer must exist. This designer would, of course, make the design adaptable. Adaptation or micro evolution is actual proof of the designer's existence. To deny this and cling to untenable theories like macro evolution is to cling to a religion in and of itself. The acknowledgment of a powerful designer/creator of the universe is not a religion but an acceptance of logic and truth. It is the only scientific conclusion one can reach when studying this subject.

Mark Harpt

Return to the Bible Q & A Main Page