Question 54 – Evolution is a fact – why reject it?

"No educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact." – Ernst Mayr, renowned evolutionary biologist [4].

In Western society, the theory of evolution has entrenched itself across virtually all major facets of human thought and societal life. Its advocates assert that it is not merely "a" theory. On numerous occasions—from statements found in biology textbooks, through various declarations by evolutionary scientists, to casual viewings of nature documentaries—the public is systematically persuaded that evolution is an undeniable, proven, and irrefutable scientific fact. This assertion is repeated so frequently that it has dominated the mindset of the majority of the Western populace, deterring even uninformed citizens from questioning the validity of evolutionary theory. Attempts to highlight its substantial discrepancies often result in the immediate labeling of dissenters as deluded, unscientific, religious fanatics, and backward individuals who simply do not comprehend evolution. Discoveries and evidence that dramatically challenge the established views of evolutionary scientists are often ignored, concealed, or labeled as fraud.

Are such claims indeed justified? Is this theory of the accidental origin of life, biological species, and the universe truly beyond question, definitively proven by experimental science? (A skeptic may resort to the evasive argument that the theory of evolution does not address the origin of life itself, but only its subsequent development. However, if we set aside the fact that the question of origin fundamentally underpins the entire theory, and understand the origin of life as encompassing the entire process from inanimate matter to the present state of creation, the distinction becomes far less clear.). The bold statements made by many scientists, media outlets, and school textbooks might suggest there is absolutely no room for doubt. However, this dogmatic assertion is one of the greatest deceptions of modern history. Many scientists today, not just believers, are increasingly skeptical of this theory, drawing attention to its significant shortcomings, errors, and striking contradictions with observable scientific facts, as well as the implausibility of the scenario it presents. They argue that its general conclusions often rely on unreliable, incomplete, or erroneous information. The question of the origin of life through evolutionary processes thus stops being a conflict between religion and science but rather one between science and faith in life's spontaneous generation.

A frequent, albeit disingenuous and false, claim about evolutionary theory may read as follows: 

"The theory of evolution is a scientifically proven fact; science provides countless clear pieces of evidence supporting this theory."

A truthful and honest statement about the theory of evolution might read like this:

"The theory of evolution is a hypothesis attempting to explain the origin of life without the need for supernatural interventions by higher powers. However, it harbors many mysteries and secrets that science cannot unravel and faces numerous severe problems it cannot solve or explain. Yet its proponents believe these knowledge gaps will be bridged in the future, and science will find satisfactory answers to what currently seems insurmountable."

This is partially confirmed by the honest recognition of evolutionary theorist Dr. František Čížek, who admitted that evolutionary theory, as science, has its peculiarities and unique limitations and cannot be viewed like, for instance, physics: 

"The theory of evolution, as a whole, lacks the deductive structure found in Newtonian mechanics. There are a whole host of reasons for this. Among them, the fact that a vast amount of essential information on biological objects is forever lost and that the problems in this field are extraordinarily broad and complex. This is why many claims of this theory are still only outlined. Instead of explicitly formulated laws and relationships at various levels, there are many assumed conclusions and hypotheses, with exceptionally weak inductive claims and often mere conjectures." [8]

Other scientists, like evolutionary biologist Prof. Jan Zrzavý, candidly stated in a discussion: 

"The second question asks whether belief in evolution is also merely faith. Yes, it is. Anything in the world could have formed through Darwinian selection, just as an intelligent designer could have created anything in the world. Evolution is one of the stories we crafted to explain what we observe." And on the existence of phenomena unexplained by evolutionary biology, he writes: "I readily admit that there are many such gaps. So what? Our ignorance proves nothing." [9]

No, these evolutionists do not align with believing Christian scientists (creationists). For example, Dr. Čížek, in the same book, expresses his belief in the validity of the evolutionary theory. Nonetheless, they acknowledge the gaps and constraints within the evolutionary theory, yet they still believe in it and find it a meaningful explanation for the world around us. Fair enough. However, any dogmatic conclusions about the validity of the evolutionary theory remain a matter of faith, not scientific findings based on unequivocal facts. This is pointed out by scientists "on the other side of the barricade," who question the theory of evolution based on their professional insights.

Consider the words of molecular biologist Dr. Michael Denton: 

"..is still, as it was in Darwin´s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe." [10]

Agnostic Dr. D. Berlinski, who has professionally engaged with mathematics and molecular biology, states: 

"Darwin's theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive. Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests." [11]

This sentiment is echoed by noted chemist, computer scientist, and mechanical engineer, James M. Tour, who candidly asserts: 

"I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don't just buy a kit, and mix thisand mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules…Still, I don't understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, "I don't understand this"? …Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it's a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, "Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?" Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go "Uh-uh. Nope." Now, I understandmicroevolution, I really do. We do this all the timein the lab. I understand this. But when you have speciation changes, when you have organs changing, when you have to have concerted lines of evolution, all happening in the same place and time – not just one line – concertedlines, all at the same place, all in the same environment … this is very hard to fathom.I was in Israel not too long ago, talking with a bio-engineer, and [he was] describing to me the ear, and he was studying the different changes in the modulus of the ear, and I said, "How does this come about?" And he says, "Oh, Jim, you know, we all believe in evolution, but we have no idea how it happened." [12]

Doesn't this sound less confident than what we hear in popular science documentaries or read in biology textbooks, dear reader? Let's look at further statements from various scientists across different fields:

RNDr. Peter Vajda, Ph.D., from the Geophysical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, remarked: 

"The theory of evolution has a tremendous number of gaps, critical gaps. One thing is what you hear in popular series, where it's proclaimed that evolution is a fact, not a theory... that it has been conclusively proven 100 or 1000 times over... and another is attending scientific conferences, where deeply convinced evolutionists acknowledge that, to this day, we have neither a meaningful nor even a hypothesis on how life could have arisen from chemicals, or life from non-life, or how the entire spectrum of plant and animal life forms originated. Contemporary evolutionists know very well that genetic mutations plus natural selection, central to neo-Darwinism, cannot accomplish it." [13]

Or consider the words of experimental physicist Dr. Drahoslav Vajda:

"To this day, evolution proponents have not provided a single scientific proof in its favor. Everything presented to the public is nothing more than claims like: Evolution is an undeniable fact! Everything presented to the public amounts to dogmatic assertions from the Darwinist (evolutionary) worldview, but no (none!) scientific fact testifying to the evolution of life and the diversity of animal species from a common ancestor has been presented. No wonder: it hasn't been presented because no scientific fact in favor of evolution exists! It's easy to verify: ask any evolutionist to present such evidence. As a former evolutionist, I claim they won't, because they simply don't have it—because no such evidence exists... That's how people are manipulated." [14]

Lecturer Vajda's challenge to confront evolutionists with clear (not ambiguous, speculative, or circumstantial, which can be interpreted otherwise) evidence for the evolutionary theory is not isolated. For example, one can view the documentary "Evolution vs. God," where a believer questions university professors and their students (atheists and evolutionists) about these proofs. It is surprisingly alarming how drastically these defenders of evolution fail and falter (even though it's true that one cannot conclude about the truth of the evolutionary theory from the ignorance of a few individuals, even university professors… if, however, this theory genuinely is a "proven fact," one would expect bolder and clearer answers).

Doubts regarding the possibility of life arising through random mutations and natural selection are voiced by an increasing number of scientists from different disciplines—biology, chemistry, physics, anthropology, bioengineering, geology, and astrophysics. It is often scientists from some of the world's most prestigious universities who acknowledge these doubts. Yet, this fact is unlikely to be heard in schools or the media. For instance, several hundred courageous scientists worldwide have chosen to express skepticism and disagreement with traditional Darwinian explanations for the origin of life and are calling for a more thorough examination of the so-called "evidence" for Darwin's theory.

(A list of these scientists, along with their professional affiliations, is available at dissentfromdarwin.org)

Let us therefore examine in brief some areas of scientific inquiry often touted as evidence of evolution. Questioning the points below cannot definitively demonstrate the invalidity of evolutionary theory, but it can show you that the foundation on which it stands is not as solid as is often relentlessly drilled into our heads…

1) Evolutionary Rationales Seem Logical

One of the strongest arguments for the validity of evolutionary theory, according to many of its supporters, is the ability of numerous theoretical evolutionary models to neatly explain the reality we observe. We often hear statements like, "The similarity of organisms can be arranged clearly in a 'tree' according to evolutionary theory and its expectations, allowing us to better see who is related to whom, and it fits well," or "What evolutionary theory expects from the geographical distribution of animals (or fossils), we indeed find in nature," and various other claims suggesting this theory makes sense, is capable of prediction, and is logically coherent. In other words, theoretical schemes and proposals on how evolution might have occurred often make sense and can be considered logical at a theoretical level (though it must be added, only in some cases!).

To this, one can only say—yes, this is often true. While I (and I'm not alone in this) consider many attempts to explain the origin of various biological systems as nonsensical and fantastical, there are areas that can be labeled as theoretically meaningful. The evolutionary theory indeed can explain certain questions we encounter when investigating nature, and these explanations often make sense. This is not the point of contention. What, then, is the issue?

The problem lies in the fact that one can conceive of many logical, "claim-supported" circular arguments for various theories. The ability to explain a phenomenon does not mean that the explanation aligns with reality! Consider any sect or popular conspiracy theory. Do you think their supporters lack good and logical evidence backing their constructs? They often have plenty. Still, their conclusions frequently deviate from objective reality. The evolutionary theory (ET) cannot be empirically proven, so it must be "proven" through various mental constructs and computer simulations, which are hard to regard as "irrefutable evidence" of its validity. In other words, ET operates largely in the imagination and subsequently in the computer models of evolutionary theorists. Concrete and unequivocal proofs from the real world are often lacking. This ostensibly convincing proof for evolution was compellingly commented on by thinker Jan Horník (to be objective, I must note that he criticized creationists similarly, and I agree with him as he addresses the matter we discussed in question no. 30):

"Why do facts fit so precisely? The reason is incredibly trivial: because they were interpreted by the theory of evolution! How could they not fit logically precisely? It simply cannot happen unless an interpreter makes a logical mistake. I am repeatedly fascinated by how the scientific community can be satisfied with such a simple reasoning: it makes sense, so it's true. Reason truly halts at the notion that this is seen as proof, considered even an irrefutable fact of evolution. Something so weak would not be accepted already after taking an introductory course in logic, let alone after university education… Thus, evolutionists deserve the harshest critique for their pseudo-evidence of evolution, which represents no more than mere theoretical tautology… Everyone may invent whatever hypotheses they wish, but they then have a duty to provide evidence rather than just wait for refutation. Evolutionists have not yet presented any serious evidence, yet evolution continues to be taught almost everywhere as an undisputed fact, like a proven scientific theory. Isn't this a parody of science? Where did the much-emphasized rationality and criticality go? Surely, this is a genuine scientific scandal!" [15]

 2) The Miller Experiment (1953)

For decades, scientists have attempted the impossible: simulating the emergence of life from non-life. This feat, however, remains elusive, with many conceding that modern science does not comprehend how life originally began. This is echoed by Nobel laureate and molecular biologist Dr. Francis Crick, who said, 

"Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts." [16]

One notable endeavor addressing the genesis of organic life was the Miller-Urey experiment. This well-known attempt aimed to simulate the presumed conditions on Earth billions of years ago to elucidate the theory of chemical evolution. The experiment's central figures were Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. The core of their experiment involved sending electric sparks into a gas mixture (emulating lightning) that was believed to closely reflect the early Earth's primitive atmosphere. The experiment resulted in the formation of several amino acids, the "building blocks" of life. Yet, despite there being no true evidence for a spontaneous origin of life, the experiment has been both embraced and criticized; some scientists dismiss it, while others use it as a caution or even as a "clue" indicating life's emergence. Many people were thus misguided into believing that life could arise from inanimate substances. The portrayal of these results and their strong interpretation has indeed become a substantive misrepresentation—not in the experiment itself but in what evolutionists have often made of it. Dr. Walter L. Bradley remarked: 

"So the scientific significance of Miller's experiment today…is zilch. When textbooks present the Miller experiment, they should be honest enough to say it was interesting historically but not terribly relevant to how life actually developed."" [3]

For many decades, even some skeptical researchers in the field of life's origin have rejected this experiment. A critical reason is the experiment's reliance on an atmosphere that likely never existed. Ignoring this major flaw and even allowing for the speculative formation of "some" amino acids, the gap between such an occurrence and the creation of a functional cell remains vast. Biologist Jonathan Wells, in his book "The Case for a Creator," illustrates this gap as requiring the creation and precise combination of the correct types and sequence of amino acids to produce a protein molecule. Multiple protein molecules, also correctly ordered, would then be necessary to form a living cell. Wells concludes that the chasm between non-living chemicals and even the simplest living organisms is immensely wide.

Central to this debate is the concept of "information." Life's origin and functioning deeply depend on billions of information exchanges at the micro-molecular level. In biological organisms, this information is encoded using a sequence of four letters (A, G, C, T), forming an exquisite "biological language." However, information is of a non-material nature and cannot be derived from chemistry, physics, or its carrier! For instance, if one writes a meaningful sentence on paper, the sequence of letters conveys specific information, but this cannot be deduced from the paper or the ink alone. Similarly, from merely AGCT bases, it is impossible, without a spiritual source, to deduce (solely from chemistry, physics, or coincidence) a sophisticated, meaningful script for an eye, brain, heart, or life itself! In other words, life originates only from life, where information already exists. This groundbreaking understanding was confirmed long ago by one of the 19th century's foremost scientists, Louis Pasteur, who debunked the long-held theory of abiogenesis (spontaneous generation). The inherent complexity in any animal or plant body, brimming with intricate programs, renders the belief in their self-creation utterly unfounded and against scientific knowledge—an act of pure, unwavering faith.

Conclusion: While science has long outstripped this experiment, unfortunately, some textbooks have yet to reflect this and continue to present it in various ways as supporting evidence for Darwin's theory. On the contrary, many honest scientists clearly state that the origin of life remains an immense mystery. For example, Dr. George Whitesides, a Harvard chemistry professor, adds: 

"The Origin of Life. This problem is one of the big ones in science. It begins to place life, and us, in the universe. Most chemists believe, as do I, that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic Earth. How? I have no idea." [16]

 3) Darwin's Finches and the Phenomenon of So-Called Microevolution

Let's clarify an important matter. Many uninformed proponents of evolution shake their heads in disbelief, unable to comprehend how anyone can reject evolution when, in their view, it unfolds right before our eyes! A well-known example is the so-called Darwin's finches, which exhibited different beak sizes depending on the conditions in which they lived. In other words, living organisms can adapt to changing environments (involving certain changes in their size, shape, or abilities), which helps them survive. We also know that through artificial selection, different traits can be achieved (such as higher milk yield in cows) not found in the original individual. Some call this phenomenon "microevolution"—in reality, believing scientists have no issue with it, and it is not in conflict with biblical teaching. When you hear about evidence of evolution, you will primarily be presented with examples from this area.

However, there is a fundamental problem—so-called microevolution is nothing more than variation within the existing gene pool. All the types and sizes of finches' beaks are already present within this gene pool; thus, there is no emergence of new information. What occurs here are changes within the specific kind of the individual. From this variability and adaptability of creatures, evolutionists hypothesize that one kind of organism can transform into another (by summing microevolutions) if given sufficient time and appropriate conditions. This theory regarding the emergence of fundamentally new types of organisms is then referred to as "macroevolution," the foundation of evolutionary theory. This component of evolutionary theory is the subject of vehement disagreement among many scientists and believers alike.

In other words, variability (so-called "microevolution") is scientifically substantiated; macroevolution clearly is not. All changes in variability occur within the limits of a specific kind and do not exceed its boundaries (a dog remains a dog, a cat a cat, a cow a cow, a finch a finch, etc.). On the contrary, animal breeders and plant cultivators are well aware that pushing one advantageous trait destroys other traits within that kind. Evolutionists, however, believe that time will help introduce new information into the gene pool. Science refutes these assumptions, showing that mutations do not bring any new information (though many try to refute this by pointing to bacteria's resistance to antibiotics, etc.). When evolution proponents claim something like "species evolve, just look at nature where you have it unfolding live," they are, in fact, only presenting a different form of the originally created kind (known in creation science as a "baramin"), which is modified due to variability—not a new kind with new genes—therefore, no evidence of evolution.

The Bible indicates that God created creatures according to their kinds. For instance, all dog breeds likely originated from a single original representative, probably a type of wolf. From this, various new representatives of this kind have been bred, from Saint Bernards to Dachshunds. Yet, when crossbreeding dogs, you will never end up with anything other than another type of dog. Regarding the adaptability of creatures to various external changes (such as the famous beaks), it is plasticity within a single given kind that one would expect from a perfect Creator.

I can hardly imagine a Creator who would make creatures that would immediately perish at the first hint of significant environmental change due to zero adaptability.

The fact that creatures can respond to changing conditions is thus not a significant proof of evolution but rather an illustration that God cares for His creation, allowing it to live even in changing conditions. Evolutionists must believe that macroevolutionary mechanisms occur, despite the fact that this has never been confirmed by science. Therefore, it is not an "undeniable fact," but rather a belief in the power of time.

4) Positive Mutations and Fruit Flies

One of the main driving forces of evolutionary development is supposed to be various mutations, which, according to proponents of evolutionary theory, are the means by which new information arises in organisms. From this perspective, textbooks might classify mutations as negative, neutral, or positive. And it is the gradual manifestation of positive mutations that supposedly played an important role in evolutionary changes. However, the issue arises because, according to many scientists, "pure" positive mutations don't exist! That is, not in the sense of bringing new information—because any beneficial change is compensated by the loss of other important information or traits.

Scientists, for instance, have been trying for over a hundred years through numerous experiments and genetic manipulations to witness evolution expressing itself on a common fly (the fruit fly). This fly is very suitable for experiments because it produces new generations quickly. However, even after hundreds of generations and a large number of different induced mutations, it shows no evolution. Essentially, all mutations deform or destroy the fly in various ways. And those which bring seemingly beneficial changes ruin other characteristics and cannot even "fix" themselves in subsequent generations, as is necessary for evolution. In other words—no evolution is taking place. Certainly, this fact is interpreted as such: evolution took place over "millions of years," so we cannot expect to witness it through short-term experiments. And yes—it is a valid hypothesis in which many scientists believe. Yet, this has little to do with the statement "evolution is scientifically proven." It is even more evident when observing bacteria, which reproduce within minutes or hours, and despite cultivating several tens of thousands of generations, no evolution is observed either. The excuse of the need for millions of years of observation does not hold here. Nevertheless, scientists offer other excuses, such as that bacteria or fruit flies have "no reason" to evolve further because they are already fixed and developed. Scientific conclusion? It is faith in one's own assumption.

The scientific conclusion is clear—no evolution is occurring. Many scientists hold the opinion that mutations NEVER bring any new information. Of course, many evolutionists resist this notion and present various speculative examples they consider to be the emergence of new information. Often, these involve ambiguous and debatable conclusions that, in reality, bring no new information but simply rearrange (or switch on/off) existing information, etc. (often, for example, antibiotic resistance).

 Dr. Robert Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, noted that:

"Much of present-day biological knowledge is ideological. A key symptom of ideological thinking is the explanation that has no implications and cannot be tested. I call such logical dead ends antitheories because they have exactly the opposite effect of real theories: they stop thinking rather than stimulate it."

5) Darwin's Tree of Life

At the beginning of his theory, Darwin created the idea that all current species originated from a common ancestor. Included in this idea was the creation of an imaginary tree, graphically illustrating how these species are evolutionarily connected. Each twig represents a specific species, branching at the point where one species turns into two. Many branches are dead ends because those species become extinct; others grow to the top—to today's species. This concept was central to Darwin's thinking and held great importance—one might say it helped evolution prevail in its early days. In short, the idea that we all must have a common ancestor was championed; hence, these trees were created, placing creatures in positions where they do not actually belong.

Traditional phylogenetic trees connect today's species with potential ancestors based on shared morphological characteristics (e.g., shape). This type of tree faced numerous negative evidences and found no support in fossils. Therefore, evolutionary scientists began searching elsewhere. Exploring deeper into molecular biology seemed promising. However, both approaches (traditional and genetic) often present differing scenarios, and molecular data perhaps indicate more problems than the traditional tree based on similarities.

To keep it brief—these trees have long served as successful propaganda tools for the evolutionary paradigm. We now know that all along they were imaginative constructions having little to do with reality. Evolutionary paleoanthropologist Mary Leakey stated years ago:

"All these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense. "[17

Modern molecular data only emphasize her point. Now, most biologists accept that this tree does not reflect the natural state and must be discarded; it serves them merely as a simplification in striving to better understand nature.

For some evolutionary scientists, the recent debunking of the tree of life is a stunning shock, perceived as a serious blow. John Dupré, a philosopher of biology, comments:

"It is part of a revolutionary change in biology that is going to rewrite the textbooks. The standard model of evolution is under enormous pressure from new data flowing from many fields of biology. It is clear that from now on we will view evolution as a matter of coalescing and cooperation rather than exclusively a change within isolated lineages."[18]

Another scientist, evolutionary biologist Michael Rose, goes further: 

"The tree of life is being politely buried – we all know that. What's less accepted is our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change. "[18]

Many biologists now admit they are more confused than before regarding the relatedness of species. Nevertheless, they remind readers in their articles that this is not an endangerment to evolutionary theory, seeking networks rather than trees in the evolutionary history. Clearly, these are mere unsubstantiated speculations and unverified hypotheses, far from the claim "evolution is a proven fact." I personally believe these findings indirectly support the Christian stance—that diverse modern species never evolved from different kinds, and all those trees created a false notion of reality over decades, which never occurred. The ancestors of today's creatures were created as distinct kinds, as revealed by God in the Bible.

 6) Fossils

In our brief overview of the foundational and frequently cited "proofs" of evolution, fossil findings—or so-called fossils—cannot be left out. According to some proponents of evolutionary theory, these represent the strongest argument for its validity. If all life gradually evolved over many millions of years, we should then find countless fossils in the geological strata. Ideally, these would be arranged progressively—from the most primitive to the most complex in layers from bottom to top—including numerous so-called "transitional forms," which served as links between today's creatures and their ancient ancestors. Unfortunately (for evolutionists), we do not find any of this. One of the greatest blows and challenges to evolutionary theory is the so-called Cambrian Explosion. This relates to what were until recently considered the oldest rocks (dated by evolutionary scientists at over 500 million years), which contain billions of fossils of highly complex organisms—appearing completely unexpectedly, without any signs of development, and suddenly. Evolutionary scientists attempt to explain this uncomfortable situation in many ways. They offer various hypotheses and speculations, yet they have failed to provide a credible explanation.
This problem does not concern solely the Cambrian Explosion. The fossil record (in general) exhibits traits of sudden appearance, virtually no development, systematic gaps between species, and also no transitional forms between species. Even Darwin himself was aware of this significant gap at the beginning, though he was hopeful that future discoveries would resolve the issue. He once wrote: 

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record". [19]

Decades after Darwin, scientists began to realize they had a problem—Darwin's hope remained unfulfilled. Prof. N. H. Nilsson, a botanist and geneticist, stated long ago: 

"It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled. " [20].

Even contemporary and renowned evolutionary scientist Stephen Jay Gould, who attempted to salvage this uncomfortable fact for evolutionary theory with another evolutionary speculation about punctuated equilibrium, acknowledges this contradiction against the expectations of evolutionists: 

"The tale itself illustrates the central fact of the fossil record so well—geologically abrupt origin and subsequent extended stasis of most species... Anatomy may fluctuate through time, but the last remnants look pretty much like the first representatives. " [21]

Thus, Darwin's hope, even after more than 100 years of intensive searching, has not been fulfilled! We have cataloged millions (over 250 million) of fossils, and they only confirm these conclusions. The fossil record is rather chaotic, lacking any signs of evolution. Why, then, do evolutionists continue to present fossils as strong evidence of evolution? A good question. Alongside the apparent ignorance of facts and the effort to cling to a "clearly proven" theory at any cost, paleontology faces a daunting task. There are indeed significant problems in understanding, interpreting, and categorizing fossils within the framework of evolutionary development. This gives them fairly free rein in how they interpret these finds and place them into their figurative tree of life. Roger Lewin expresses it thusly: 

"The unfortunate fact is that fossils do not emerge from the ground already labeled. And it is bad enough that labels are mostly given in the name of egoism and naive ignorance of the fact that variability exists among individuals: every nuance of shape has been interpreted as another type of organism and not as natural variation within a population... Labeling a find correctly is extraordinarily difficult, not least because these labels are something like abstractions subject to subjective influence..." [22]

It is also amusing (or perhaps sad?) that fossils "go their own way," and paleontologists interpret them in evolutionary terms simply because they assume (like many others) that evolution is a fact. Anthropologist Dr. Roger Lewin, for example, admits that "Virtually all our theories about human origins were relatively unconstrained by fossil data… The theories are… fossil-free or in some cases even fossil-proof. " [22]. Another scientist (Eldredge) adds: "...we [paleontologists] have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not." [22]

Let's briefly touch upon two areas often related to fossils:

A) Missing Links

Fossils that could somehow help bring more credible evidence for gradual development are missing. Darwinists, of course, frequently attempted to present certain finds as those missing links (and still do—e.g., Archaeopteryx—but this "hope" is also being abandoned by many scientists as a blind alley). Almost invariably, it turned out not to be the case, or those supposed links were successful hoaxes. Other times, finds are highly speculative or controversial and cannot be considered strong evidence for transitional forms. Decades of proclaimed errors and frauds have already inflicted great harm on people's minds and misled many into falsely believing in the truth of evolutionary theory.
How do scientists cope with this situation? Well, the flexibility and unfalsifiability of the theory of evolution come into play here too—are there no missing links? "It doesn't matter, evolution is a proven fact." And since it is a proven fact, it means we must be mistaken, and perhaps we just haven't found them (after all, discovering well-preserved fossils is a rare event, that is true). Or the evolution happened so rapidly that creatures evolved swiftly in small numbers and only later multiplied, resulting in our current fossil record.

At other times, Czech evolutionary advocate Prof. Jaroslav Flegr, overwhelmed by the nonexistence of transitional forms, decided to write a book "Frozen Evolution" attempting to explain this uncomfortable situation. And last but not least, some assert under the pressure of these proofs that all creatures are transitional in fact. I don't want to criticize scientific explanations even in this arguably desperate manner. It's fair enough. What bothers me is that this all takes place under the banner of "an indisputable and thoroughly proven fact." If indeed all living organisms had evolved from a single common ancestor over at least a billion years, there would be in the fossils "missing links" by sheer necessity - billions upon billions! The term "missing link" is thus misleading. They are not missing because they have not yet been found (or preserved), but because they never existed.

B) Living Fossils

Another nail in the coffin of evolutionary theory is the so-called living fossils. Many fossils found in various environments (e.g., amber purportedly hundreds of millions of years old) are indistinguishable from modern ones with no sign of evolution. Certainly, this can also be explained in evolutionary terms – perhaps there were no evolutionary pressures forcing change, which left the creature unchanged over hundreds of millions of years. A fine speculation, but any evidence? Barely—only a belief in one's assumptions. In short, the fossil record testifies to anything but evolution. The finds supporting the evolutionary theory are rare and often highly speculative. If evolution had indeed occurred, the fossil record would most likely appear entirely different.
Sometimes evolutionists try to undermine opponents by asking them to name any fossils that do not fit into the geological record. The problem is, according to many evolutionists, such anomalies do not exist. For anything critics or non-evolutionary (creationist) scientists suggest, there will be a convenient excuse that we don't have a full fossil record and thus do not precisely know into which time stage the find should be placed. If a fossil is found that does not fit into the evolutionary timeframe, it simply means that the creature evolved earlier than previously thought, and we can now refine our knowledge—in other words, "better understand evolution."

The evolutionary interpretation is thus highly flexible and absorbs virtually any change. In conclusion, I'd like to share some quotes from scientists addressing bias in this field. Several years ago, Shreeve remarked: 

"Everybody knows fossils are fickle; bones will sing any song you want to hear. " [23]

Paleoanthropologist Milford Wolpoff says:

"In my view, 'objectivity' does not exist in science. Even in the act of gathering data, decisions about what data to record and what to ignore reflect the framework of the scientist."

Furthermore, evolutionists John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas admit:

"That said, we must admit that the history of palaeontology does not read as a shining example of the pursuit of truth, especially where it was the truth of man's origins that was at issue." [24]

They further note:

"and we do know that nothing could be further from reality than the popular image of scientists as dispassionate seekers after the truth." [24]

 7) Homology – Similarity

One of the most commonly cited arguments supporting evolutionary theory is the similarity we can find across the animal kingdom. We can talk about similarities in limbs (e.g., bat wings, dolphin flippers, horse legs, and human hands have a similar bone arrangement in the forelimbs, although they exhibit different functions), similarities in functions (such as maternal milk, warm-bloodedness, etc.), or similarities in organ systems (many animals have a spine, two eyes, lungs, a brain, etc.). Do these similarities across the animal kingdom argue for a common ancestor from whom we gradually "inherit" these structures and organs?

These similarities present many practical problems. One of the most serious is that evolutionary similarity cannot be traced either with DNA sequences, or on the basis of fossil finds, or via so-called developmental pathways. Many homologous structures develop completely differently than expected—from different genes! At other times, analogous (non-homologous) structures arise from identical genes, and it is not uncommon for homologous structures or organs to develop completely independently. Did you know, for example, that our eyes are structurally similar to octopus eyes? What does this suggest? A common ancestor with the octopus? Of course not. An evolutionary theorist would not call this a "strict" homology, because supposedly it is not our common ancestor. However, when it comes to apes, such a label would be readily used.

Similar mechanisms are fairly common in nature and exist independently of each other (for example, an echolocation system similar to sonar is found both in bats and dolphins). We could continue with a series of uncomfortable, non-evolutionary homologies that strongly challenge the evolutionary notion of a common ancestor. For instance, extremely complex and intricate eyes are believed by some researchers to have evolved independently up to sixty times [25]! Leaving aside the fact that we have clear evidence indicating that similarity does not necessarily imply the necessity of a common ancestor, we can also consider here the issue of the irreducible complexity of such organs. If we attempted to even roughly express the probability of such perfect structures arising independently (and countless times in nature), we would arrive at a level of improbability so vast it would be beyond comprehension. One article addressing the issue of homologies aptly noted about only one independent biological mechanism:

"It boggles the mind to think that such a complex process could have evolved once; but to claim it happened so many times (30x), no sensible person could believe it. Being an evolutionist requires a great deal of blind faith!" [26]

A number of scientists thus acknowledge that this issue remains an unsolved mystery. Sadly, in textbooks, schools, and many nature documentaries, students and the public are systematically conditioned to accept only the "politically correct" version = similarity points to a common ancestor of animals. However, homology may support the theory of a common ancestor just as effectively as the idea of the existence of a Creator God.

What would you expect if God created all nature? Would you not anticipate that He would use similar and proven design elements and mechanisms? After all, we all live under the same or similar conditions. We eat similar food, breathe the same air, and are subjected to the same gravitational force. Why wouldn't God use the same proven design elements and mechanisms? If four limbs are effective for many reasons, why not use them for more creatures? After all, we humans act similarly! Have four wheels for cars, along with a steering wheel and other mechanisms proven effective? Then why not use them in other products? Many proven components of my computer, on which I write now, are found in entirely different products. Or take the building industry. Looking at any construction, it is difficult to find one that, for obvious reasons, does not have windows, doors, or gutters channeling rainwater. The reason for the existence of these similarities across all human activities is simple—they have only a common creator, a designer, or, if you will, an architect.

8) Haeckel, Fraud, and Embryo Similarity

In his time, Charles Darwin considered the alleged similarity of embryos among various animals as one of the strongest proofs that we all originate from a common ancestor. In his book On the Origin of Species, he wrote:

"On the principle of successive variations not always supervening at an early age, and being inherited at a corresponding not early period of life, we can clearly see why the embryos of mammals, birds, reptiles, and fishes should be so closely alike, and should be so unlike the adult forms" From this, he deduced: "Thus, community in embryonic structure reveals community of descent." [27]

However, not being an embryologist, Darwin relied on the work of other researchers, such as Ernst Haeckel. Haeckel drew images of embryos from various vertebrate classes to prove they are practically identical at early stages but become distinct creatures upon full development. Darwin adopted these ideas, applied them to humans, and claimed that the human embryo is barely distinguishable from the embryos of other vertebrates. On this basis, we should therefore infer their common origin. We do not have space to delve into this issue in detail here, so let me summarize it thus: Darwin, in this case as well, based one of his strongest beliefs about the correctness of his theory on a natural history error. For over 100 years, biologists have known that Haeckel committed fraud and falsified these drawings to support his (and subsequently Darwin's) theory [4, p. 44]. This represents one of the most notorious biological frauds, which helped to convince countless people to believe in the theory of evolution and reject faith in a Creator.

After the exposure of his fraud, Haeckel defended himself before the academic senate by claiming that other evolutionists were guilty of similar misdeeds:

"After this compromising confession of "forgery" I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow-culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of "forgery," for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed." [28]

Biologists have long known that vertebrate embryos are not similar and can be easily distinguished from one another. It is very sad, however, that these illustrations in various versions are still presented in many biology textbooks to support evolutionary belief. Some continue to propagate these falsehoods even though they know they are fraudulent, while others have no idea. Biologist Jonathan Wells mentions a case in which:

"In February 2000, textbook author Douglas Futuyma posted a response on a Kansas City internet forum to a critic who had accused him of dishonesty for including Haeckel's embryo drawings in his 1998 textbook Evolutionary Biology. In his defense, Futuyma claimed that he had been unaware of the discrepancies between Haeckel's illustrations and actual vertebrate embryos until the critic brought them to his attention." [27]

Thus, a professional evolutionary biologist and author of a university textbook was unaware of a fraud known to biologists for decades? Interesting! Despite the fact that many proponents of evolution acknowledge the error, the "proof" of evolution continues to be widely presented. At best, it is said that while this was indeed a fraud, it doesn't change the fact that evolutionary theory is true. They largely rely on this supposed proof, and when it collapses, some claim that evolutionary theory actually accounts for it since there is no reason why embryonic stages should be protected from evolutionary pressures. Here again, we see that the theory can be as flexible as rubber.

 9) Antibiotic Resistance

Another commonly cited piece of evidence for evolutionary changes, seemingly happening "in real-time," is the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics. However, this is neither a demonstration nor proof of macroevolutionary development. Israeli biophysicist Lee Spetner, who studied this topic extensively, argues that bacterial immunity arises through two processes, neither of which, according to him, supports molecules-to-man evolution.

A) The transfer of resistant (already existing) genes within bacteria = no evolution in the Darwinian sense, merely transfer within the bacterial world.

B) The creation of new resistance through mutation (yet at the cost of genetic information loss) = the temporary advantage gained through mutation comes with the price of limited functionalities [29].

These conclusions are supported by molecular biologist Dr. Daniel Criswell: 

"Although it appears these mutations are beneficial and provide an advantage to the bacterium possessing them, they all come with a cost. Ribosomal mutations, while providing antibiotic resistance for the organism, slow the process of protein synthesis, slow growth rates, and reduce the ability of the affected bacterium to compete in an environment devoid of a specific antibiotic. Furthermore, a mutation that confers resistance to one antibiotic may make the bacterium more susceptible to other antibiotics. These deleterious effects are what would be expected from a creationist model for mutations. The mutation may confer a benefit in a particular environment, but the overall fitness of the population of one kind of bacterium is decreased as a result of a reduced function of one of the components in its biological pathway.

His colleague, microbiologist Dr. Kevin Anderson, summarizes acquired resistance as follows: 

"The true biological cost paid for these mutations is invariably the loss of previously existing cellular systems or functions. Such a loss of cellular activity can hardly be considered a genetic medium that promotes macroevolution." [31]

10) Junk DNA

Junk DNA" refers to those areas of the genome that, according to evolutionists, serve no function and are considered waste or leftovers from our evolutionary past. Some scientists claim that over 90% of the human genome consists of such unnecessary parts. This argument has long been used as evidence in favor of Darwinian evolution (a perfect God would not create such redundancies, so the idea supports a gradual development from lower forms to higher, which shed the unnecessary functions of their predecessors). An evolutionist described it as follows: 

"The sharing of nonsensical DNA pieces is an elegant proof of evolutionary history, not the only [proof], but a very beautiful and didactic one." [32]

Contemporary science, however, has complicated this misconception. We now understand (and continue to uncover more examples) that most of this "junk" has significant functions. A major step forward was taken by the ENCODE project. In this project, over 440 scientists from 32 institutions conducted more than 1,600 experiments, revealing surprising information—over 80% of human DNA is biochemically active in some way (though its exact functions remain unclear). Ed Yong, on the Discover magazine website, commented: 

"And what's in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either, according to Ewan Birney, the project's Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described "cat-herder-in-chief". He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion. "It's likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent," says Birney. "We don't really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn't that useful." [33]

Though much research remains, it has become apparent that even this argument and so-called "proof" for evolution become more tenuous with greater scientific understanding. Scientists are only uncovering what creationists have long known—God does not make mistakes and knows exactly what He is doing when He creates.

11) Vestigial Organs

One of the most repeated (and refuted by creationists) errors as alleged evidence for Darwinian evolution are so-called non-functional, atrophied, or redundant organs. These, according to evolutionists, are remnants of gradual evolutionary development, once functional but now superfluous.

Despite their popularity among both the public and scientific communities, these assumptions face critical issues and shortcomings. Firstly, proving any organ's redundancy is impossible. Its function may simply be unknown and could be discovered later. Critics have noted over 100 instances of allegedly atrophied organs where we now know they serve significant roles in our bodies [34]. Secondly, even if one such organ were found, it would suggest degeneration (which the creation model anticipates) rather than development (where we'd expect emerging organs of increasing complexity). Allow me to provide a few brief examples:

Wisdom Teeth

Wisdom teeth are present in animals as well. If our diets were healthier (issues arise in populations consuming soft food), they would be as beneficial to us as they are to animals, or to people in less developed nations. Throughout much of human history, people consumed foods requiring more effort to chew (which better developed the jaws and created more space for teeth), thus minimizing or eliminating problems with these teeth [35].

Appendix

The appendix is one of the most debated and well-known misconceptions. We now know it plays an important role in the immune system, especially in childhood, and maintains a healthy balance of microorganisms in the digestive tract [36; 37].

Body Hair

In relation to body hair, eyebrows, eyelashes, head hair, and body hair are often mentioned. However, each serves a purpose. Eyebrows prevent sweat from entering the eyes, eyelashes guard against debris, head hair is an essential insulator or protection against sunstroke. Body hair may have a sensory function, contain a higher presence of stem cells (enhancing healing), and, importantly, keep skin pores open and healthy by allowing sebum to seep through the skin [38].

Coccyx

The coccyx, or tailbone, actually serves several important functions. It anchors muscles, prevents pelvic organs from sinking, and its removal can lead to issues with sitting, standing, childbirth, or incontinence [39].

Male Nipples

This argument can be categorized within the broader domain of homology, which we discussed in point 7. The existence of male nipples can also be explained within the framework of intelligent design. It is nothing more than an economical approach to organism construction. In the earliest stages of development, embryos follow the same blueprint. Later, hormones determine the fetus's specific development into either male or female. Nonetheless, it is not certain that these organs are non-functional. They are fully developed (with blood supply and nerves), and some suggest their function in sexual stimulation [40].

We can continue with various, allegedly atrophied muscles (e.g., ear muscles, calf muscles, etc.), tonsils, wings on flightless birds, or whale pelvic bones. None of these provide serious evidence for Darwinian evolution, and their existence has valid reasons. It must be noted that in the past, doctors (indoctrinated by evolutionary beliefs in non-functional organs) caused substantial harm (sometimes fatally) by removing tonsils or knee menisci.

Summary

In a similar vein, we could continue debunking various false claims (alleged proofs of blind evolution), like how the purported imperfection of many created things (e.g., the supposedly poorly connected eye retina, the panda's thumb) implies the nonexistence of a perfect designer. However, I believe these examples suffice to illustrate the point.

It is indeed regrettable that the public is largely unaware that Darwin and his followers built the foundations of their theory on sheer pseudo-scientific nonsense and, often, deceit. Had contemporary knowledge from various scientific fields been available at the time, this theory, in my opinion, could never have emerged. Yet, the ideological train had already left the station, and any evidence questioning its foundations is dismissed simply because "evolution is a proven fact." Evolutionists no longer question whether "evolution is real," rather they delve into "how it works." They have assumed with faith that the world could not have originated otherwise. This is a religious stance with little in common with empirical science. Creation proponents faced far more challenges in the past. Scientific knowledge was lacking, and many "proofs" indeed superficially supported evolutionary theory.

But it became clear these were flawed, or often deceptions. Meanwhile, gaps continue to widen between scientific reality and evolutionary speculation. The problem is that this paradigm has since dominated the scientific community and educational systems, leading to the rejection, dismissiveness, or ridicule of any opposing criticism, repeatedly playing the broken record: "There is nothing left to debate, evolution is a proven fact." I hope I have shed light on the fact that this statement is not as valid as its proponents try so vigorously to assert…

Last Note – regarding the contentious issues above (and others), many people, including scientists, console themselves that what science does not know today, it will discover later. Therefore, there is no need to involve God (the so-called "God of the gaps" argument). However, it is crucial to note that many facts against evolution (e.g., against the possibility of life arising spontaneously from inanimate matter) are not about science NOT KNOWING, but about science KNOWING. That is, knowing life cannot arise from non-life. Not that we will uncover how it happened, but we know today that such a process contradicts all known laws of chemistry, physics, or probability calculations.

Summation

The purpose of this discussion was not to prove God's existence but to debunk the false and deceitful belief that "evolution is a scientifically proven fact." It is an unsupported claim. It appears the primary defense against current adverse scientific knowledge is aggressive propaganda and the intimidation or mockery of anyone who dares to question its conclusions. My conclusion is also supported by the constant abandonment of earlier false views once considered "unquestionable proofs of evolution" and later (sometimes quietly) abandoned. Yes, science requires abandoning the outdated and approaching the truth – please, let it be so. But let's not confuse our children and students and deceive them into believing that there is no room for discussion and that everything is "long scientifically proven." That is simply not true.