When Is a Fact Not a Fact? - Part 2
For some, both Darwinism and Christianity could be true. Logically, that could be the case. Knowing the mechanisms of the system does not account for the systemʼs origin. An automobile operates by “blind forces,” but that does not negate the need for a Designer. But for many, evolution points to atheism. And if God did create the cosmos, then itʼs hard to see how pure chance would be overly involved.
As we noted in the previous column, it is a leap of faith to take the small, observable changes within species and assume that there is no limit to them.
The evidence indicates that there is, and we cited the fruit fly experiments to show that there is. In short, “microevolution” is observable. Macroevolution is not.
Nor does the fossil record support Darwin. He said as much when he wroteOrigin of the Species, and admitted that if his theory were true, there would be millions of transitional fossils to mark the history of gradual descent. At the time of his writing, he could not cite a single example.
After 150 years, the fossil evidence hasnʼt changed. The famous Stephen Jay Gould said that the lack of transitional fossils, or “missing links,” was the trade secret of Paleontology.
Colin Patterson, of the Natural History Museum, said that there was not ONE transitional fossil beyond dispute, and this was in reference to the Archaeopteryx, the “holy grail” of Darwinists.
Darwinʼs Tree of Life, which pictures our common ancestor as the trunk from which all life has branched, has been virtually chopped down by the fossil record. If we take the Biblical “kind” to correspond to the biological word, “phyla,” then virtually every “kind” of animal life appears at the same geological level, the Cambrian, fully formed and very “suddenly” in geological terms. And they stay the same, with no directional change, until they die out, or in some cases, are still around.
Jun-Yuan Chen, perhaps Chinaʼs leading paleontologist and long time critic of Darwin, ran into a brick wall when he presented his evidence in the U.S.. His conclusion was, “In China, we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America, you can criticize the government but not Darwin.”