Although the theory of evolution and the explanation of the origins of the Earth and life may seem well established to the general public, this is not as evident to secular scientists. The theory of evolution has never been free from controversy or challenges.
The evolutionary synthesis
In the twentieth century, the evolutionary synthesis became the standard model for explaining processes of change in nature. However, a few years ago, the prominent evolutionist Douglas Futuyma made the following observation regarding it:
‘Ever since the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s, some biologists have expressed doubt that the Synthetic Theory [the dominant modern version of evolution in science, also known as neo-Darwinism], based principally on mutation, genetic variation, and natural selection, adequately accounts for macroevolution, or evolution above the species level.’1
Even leading neo-Darwinists of their time, George Gaylord Simpson (an eminent paleontologist) and Ernst Mayr (an expert on speciation and systematics), were among the most prominent skeptics regarding the evolutionary synthesis. Analyzing the fossil record, they concluded that evolution must have occurred irregularly. They stated that significant leaps must have taken place and that many creatures did not evolve at all.2 They openly admitted that many fossils, dated to tens or even hundreds of millions of years, essentially do not differ from the contemporary counterparts of those animals.3
The concept of punctuated equilibrium
Given that the contradictions within the fossil record were, and continue to be, both undeniable and striking, two prominent evolutionists, Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge, proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972.4 This theory maintains that, due to the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, evolution is marked by extended periods of stasis with little or no change. These periods are occasionally disrupted by brief episodes of rapid transformation, during which new forms appear.
The concept became popularly associated with the idea of ‘hopeful monsters’. However, it failed to gain widespread acceptance among evolutionists. A principal difficulty with the theory lay in the fact that advances in molecular biology and genomics undermined its genetic basis. The same criticism has also been directed at the evolutionary synthesis.
Irreducible complexity at the molecular level
Every living cell and its genome display an astonishing level of complexity. Evolutionists must contend with the fact that beneficial mutations are extremely rare, and all genes examined so far have not shown the capacity to mutate and evolve freely. In reality, genes function within hierarchical and irreducibly complex networks involving numerous other genes and regulatory systems present in the cell.
The integrity of DNA
It is now known that DNA in the genome can be marked at specific sites with epigenetic tags that alter gene function while leaving the DNA sequence unchanged. Through epigenetic modifications, organisms experience a range of environmentally specific regulations that are precisely aligned with their needs. Many of these changes can also be inherited by offspring.
The extended evolutionary synthesis
The discoveries outlined above clearly suggest that evolution cannot function even at the most fundamental genetic level. As a result, a new evolutionary framework has emerged within the scientific community: the extended evolutionary synthesis.56
Proponents of this model argue that neo-Darwinism ‘ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions regarding the random nature of hereditary variability’.6 They concede that ‘many scientists today see the need for a deeper and fuller exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process’.6
In doing so, they acknowledge that, at present, they lack sufficient understanding and are unable to explain how evolutionary processes actually occur. At the same time, they categorically reject substantial evidence pointing to the involvement of a Divine Engineer in the design of cellular mechanisms.
Is there any convincing evidence?
No matter how strong the evidence for a recent creation may be, those who firmly reject the possibility of divine involvement in the origin of Earth and life are unlikely to be persuaded. Even a significant lack of evidence for evolution will not prompt them to question whether their position rests more on belief than on reason.
By the way, we recommend reading the articles:
- Why Do We Seek Longevity?
- Panpsychism and the Origin of Human Consciousness
- Earth – the Only Planet with Fire
- Who Created God?
- Scientists and Philosophers Who Found Faith in God
Footnotes
- Futuyma, D.J. (2015) ‘Can Modern Evolutionary Theory Explain Macroevolution?’, in Serrelli, E. and Gontier, N. (eds.) Macroevolution: Explanation, Interpretation and Evidence. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 29–85.
- Carroll, S.B. (2009) Remarkable Creatures: Epic Adventures in the Search for the Origins of Species. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
- Morris, J. and Sherwin, F. (2012) The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature’s History of Life. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research.
- Eldredge, N. and Gould, S.J. (1972) ‘Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism’, in Schopf, T.J.M. (ed.) Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper and Company, pp. 82–115.
- Laland, K.N. et al. (2015) ‘The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions’, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 282(1813), p. 20151019.
- The Third Way: Evolution in the Era of Genomics and Epigenomics (n.d.) Thethirdwayofevolution.com. Available at: https://thethirdwayofevolution.com
Based on: J. P. Tomkins, Evolutionary Crisis and the Third Way, Acts & Facts, Institute for Creation Research, August 2016, p. 14.
© Source of main image: Canva.
The portal EvolutionOfThinking.org, created by the Research and Education Institute, focuses on education and the dissemination of knowledge related to research on various aspects of human well-being.
