By RAYMOND DE SOUZA, KM
As we analyze the Darwiniac “theory” of evolution of “survival of the fittest,” the natural conclusion we come to is simply that the extinction of species is observed frequently; but the production or appearance of new species has never been observed. It is not science; it is wishful thinking.
Experience shows that every attempt to provoke evolutionary change of species has failed: The mutations created by forced breeding experiments have been complete failures. Either they never go beyond the basic design of the creature; or they disappear in later generations; or they are quite useless; or they cause harm to the creature; or their offspring are sterile; or they simply produce monsters that cannot survive.
Authentic mutations have only been observed to occur within the species (that is, when transformation, not evolution, is verified).
There is no way out of it: No mutation has ever produced a new species, or new organs, or a greater complexity, or more viability, or any major change. Fruit flies are the most common object of breeding experiments, yet “fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised.” Stubborn, uncooperative flies! Insecticide will fix them!
The other point of fundamental importance is that the isolation and distinctness of different types of organisms, the existence of clear discontinuities in nature, self-evident even to the non-scientist, is inexplicable if they are meant to be gradual. In plain English, there are no in-between creatures to prove a gradual evolution. For instance, there ought to exist birds with tiny wings and heads looking like lizards, or mammals with scaly skins and cold blood, or half-formed men with apelike faces and jaws (liberal politicians are not a good comparison).
But perhaps the fossil records are the ones that strike the mortal blow on evolution since evolutionists absolutely love to discover old bones, in the hope of proving their theories. Unfortunately for them, the fossil record to date has such huge gaps, that is, there are no huge numbers of extinct transitional or intermediate forms which their theory demands must be there. Yes, if evolution happened sometime in the past, there ought to exist thousands or even millions of fossils of intermediary creatures, but there aren’t any.
You find the fossil of the fish and of the reptile, but of no one in between. You find the fossil of the reptile and of the bird, but of no one in between; you find fossils of the bird and of the mammal, but of no one in between. You find the fossil of the mammal and of men, but no one in between — can’t we get the hint from nature?
The isolated fossil records of so-called ape-men are so few in number that all they can prove is that there were freaks of nature in the past, as there are in the present, especially in politics.
This is the fact of science: So very few even alleged intermediate forms have been found, and all of these are contested. The intense search for fossils and the study of them since Darwin’s time has produced three conclusions, all incompatible with evolution:
Stability: There are only fixed forms of life, keeping to stable patterns and not showing directional change or significant change;
Sudden appearance: That is, species appear fully formed and complex when they are discovered;
Sudden disappearance, rather than gradual obsolescence when confronted by the development of new forms: There appear to have been a series of mass extinctions in the history of the Earth — so extensive in fact, that far more species have perished than survived.
Strictly speaking, the study of fossils never reveals anything more than a succession of types. It does not and cannot show one type evolving into another. In other words, it merely presents facts without an explanation. Evolution, on the other hand, is an attempted explanation of facts, and must be judged as such. And it has explained nothing.
But there is more to say, plenty more. From the point of view of microbiology, the facts show that the alleged gradual improvement claimed to exist by evolutionists is actually impossible.
This is so because biochemical systems are irreducibly complex. Their complexity is simply mind-boggling. An irreducibly complex system is one that is made up of several inter-dependent parts, linked in such a way that the absence of any one part means that the whole system ceases to function.
For example, take a mousetrap, composed of a base, metal hammer, spring, sensitive catch, holding bar. Now, if one part is missing, it cannot catch mice. The eye, similarly, is a useless organ until all its parts are in place, and not only must all its parts be there, but the entire corresponding parts of the brain that receive and process the data from the eye must also all be in place.
Now, an eye cannot work until all of its parts are present. No gradual process of natural selection could have formed and refined an irreducibly complex system in a step-by-step fashion, because it does not work unless all its parts are already present. While some structures within nature and man might be explained by natural selection, the irreducibly complex systems (such as the systems which control vision, photosynthesis, blood clotting, immunity, and cellular transport) could not have evolved by themselves, but must have been designed by an Intelligent Designer who intervened to create those systems or to cause them to arise at a set time.
The conclusion is simple: “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Do you know who wrote that? Charles Darwin himself.
And yet, despite his comment, Darwin proceeded to uphold natural selection as an explanation of the eye. This is self-inflicted blindness, no pun intended.
To this we may add: The development of the eye in pairs, and the necessary corresponding parts of the brain for the reception and analysis of what the eyes see, are further proof that chance or blind forces are incapable of forming such a complex organ as the eye and the even more complex mechanism of the brain, without which the eye would be a useless organ.
But as Isaac Newton asked, “Was the eye contrived without skill in optics, and the ear without knowledge of sounds?” Design in fulfillment of a function is the unmistakable and undeniable mark of the Intelligent Designer. To think that a hearing aid could be formed by evolution is easier than to think that the ear itself could be formed by evolution.
The fanaticism of evolutionists in denying the simplest logic is astounding indeed! More on this next week.
+ + +
(Raymond de Souza is an EWTN program host; regional coordinator for Portuguese-speaking countries for Human Life International [HLI]; president of the Sacred Heart Institute, and a member of the Sovereign, Military, and Hospitaller Order of the Knights of Malta. His website is: www.RaymonddeSouza.com.)