Macro Evolution Doesn't Make Sense to Me

This is another in my hopefully continuing series about science and religious belief.

We live in a world which by and large accepts that Darwinian macro evolution is true. By macro evolution, I mean that people believe that somehow life began (which is separate from evolution, and is quite a problem on its own) and then random mutations happened through billions of years and finally we ended up where we are now.

This is taught as fact in public schools, not theory. Even though it is known as the "theory of evolution."

So here are some thoughts.  Where science is concerned, there are different branches.  Obviously. There is biology, and chemistry, and physics, and astronomy.  Materials!  My personal fave.


Chemistry usually involves something you can test RIGHT NOW.  I mean, the experiment may be compromised and the results may be confusing and people can and do screw up experiments but you can take, say, vinegar and baking soda and throw them together and see what happens. Right here, right now.

Other branches of science are way trickier.  I'd say the issues of ancient life and evolution are way trickier. BECAUSE, we are having to analyze data from fossils and we can't go into a lab and recreate evolution.

So we go off fossils. That's reasonable. We can learn a lot.

Now I am not going to take the time to go into all the details, but the fossil record does NOT support Darwin's tree of life theory.  There was a time called the Cambrian period and in the fossil record is something called the Cambrian explosion.  Over a fairly short period of time in geological terms, a ton of new phyla appear in the fossil record.

Frankly, that makes no sense.  Darwin suggested a tree of life. He said there would be a gradual branching.  The actual fossil record shows fairly simple life forms and then suddenly, boom, a ton of new, complex life forms appear in the fossil record.

How did that happen?

How does any of it happen?

People and animals and butterflys and bugs of all kinds, and trees and flowers and venus fly traps, are so crazy complex.

Mutations in the lab (they can be seen in fruit fly experiments) are negative the vast vast majority of the time.

How did random evolution work?  How did we get symbiotic relationships?  How did we get giraffes with incredible necks which have a hydraulic system to allow them to drink water?  They didn't need the system until they had a certain length of neck and then, what, the entire system just sprung into existence?

So many things -- like eyes, require multiple things working at once. ONE mutation wouldn't do the organism any good and would be lost from the gene pool before the second or third or fourth mutation came along.

And like I said, mutations are almost always bad.

So why does everyone believe in Darwinian macro evolution?  Well, they don't.  Plenty of scientists don't, including me and Kevin.  Not that we are biologists, but we can analyze data.

When there is a political aspect to something, or a religious aspect, data can become suspect. I believe that is true of evolution. It is NOT Ok for people in the public school system to question evolution.  Teachers who question it, and they have every RIGHT to question is, lose their jobs. Really.

I'm an Old Earth Creationist, personally. I believe God created, but that the earth and universe are indeed billions of years old.  More about that in another blog post.

For someone who is really interested in more details, read Lee Strobel's Case for a Creator book.  It is written in laymen's terms and is fascinating.

One more thing though. Any time a scientist discards a possibility without data, he or she should be beaten with a wet noodle.

The scientific body as a whole (with exceptions) has an argument like this.

We know that there is no God, therefore...

Why do we know there is no God?  It is unscientific to assume that.

If the data points towards a God (and I believe it does, strongly) then you need to keep it on the table as a possibility.  You can't just say "we KNOW that..." whatever.

No, you consider everything.  Then you analyze the data and go from there.

In my mind, based on my study of the data, the fossil record does not point to macro evolution at all. It points to a Creator God.