By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 09/04/11
Last week presidential candidate Rick Perry was asked about
evolution, to which he responded, “it’s a theory that is out there — it’s got
some gaps in it.” Perry’s answer drew the predictable ire and reprehension
we’ve learned to expect from the establishment media, and leftist anti-God
pundits, who arrogantly surmise that the science is just as settled with regard
to evolution as it is with regard to anthropogenic global warming. Perry was
exactly right, there are “gaps” in evolutionary theory.
Empirical scientific observations are classified roughly
into three categories: hypotheses, theories, and laws. The weakest of these are
hypotheses, while laws provide the strongest scientific explanations.
Evolution, as taught in most schools, is classified as a
theory. Some aspects of evolutionary theory are correct, and are validated by
the paleontological and genetic evidence. Natural selection, survival of the
fittest, and adaptation, are all well documented. If evolution is defined as
cumulative change over time then it is verifiable. Even “descent with
modification” applied to specific species is scientifically verifiable. But
Charles Darwin claimed much more than this, as he asserted that all species
originate from one. This is Darwinism, and is scientifically unverifiable and,
as such, is little more than conjecture.
To apply the valid tenets of evolution and then make
Kierkegaardian" leaps of faith" to make assertions that are not supported
by the science is what Darwinism does. Such assumptions include, but are not
limited to, trans-genus, trans-class, or trans-species evolution. There is no paleontological
evidence of gradual and progressive evolution of bugs to mice, or frogs to
birds, etc. And to make the presumption that this all started from a big bang
which itself is causally inexplicable to scientists is another such leap of
Stephen Gould, Professor of Geology and Peleontology at
Harvard, although an evolutionist, has admitted, “The absence of fossil
evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design,
indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional
intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for
gradualistic accounts of evolution." He continues, “All paleontologists
know that the fossil record contains precious little [actually, nothing] in the
way of intermediate forms; transitions between the major groups are
characteristically abrupt.” Even pre-Cambrian fossil discoveries in China did
not provide the evidence sought by Darwinists.
Another major gap in Darwinism is the genetic component. Dr.
Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery
Institute in Seattle, has said that the information stored within our DNA is
essentially a genetic code, much like a computer language. Because of this
characteristic, mathematical probabilities can be calculated based on
presumptions of Darwinistic evolutionary theory.
One such calculation has been conducted by Dr. Frank
Salisbury of the Division of Biomedical and Environment Research at the U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission many years ago. He examined the chance of one of the
most basic chemical reactions for Darwinistic evolution to take place. This
reaction involves the formation of a specific DNA molecule within a 4 billion
year time period. He calculated that chance as 10 x 415-power. This number has
415 zeros after it! That’s for one molecule. The evolutionary improbability
grows exponentially when you consider there are billions of such molecules in
Dr. Emile Borel, a French mathematician, formulated a basic
law of probability. It states that the occurrence of any event where the
chances are beyond one in 10 x 50-power, a much smaller figure than what
Salisbury came up with, is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted.
Clearly, then, it’s a mathematical impossibility for life to
have evolved as Darwinists claim. Not only does paleontological evidence not
support it as there is no evidence of transitional fossils, but the massive
strides in genetic research made over the past few decades actually make it
more difficult to support.
Evolutionary theory scientifically explains much regarding
the advancement of life. But the pure science cannot explain the original of
the universe, the origin of life, or the biological origin of man, empirically,
inductively or deductively. To claim they can is factually and scientifically
Even I, a non-scientist, can reason through what is
scientifically verifiable and what is not, regarding evolutionary theory. And
an educated electorate, which is demanded by a republic such as ours, must be
able to do so as well. Otherwise, “scientists,” media, and teachers with
agendas, will prey upon our collective ignorance to convince us it’s not
scientific to question Darwinism or other postulations.
A Darwinist must exercise faith to come to the conclusion that
all life evolved from a single organism, just as a man of faith might accept an
intelligent design explanation. I, for one, would prefer a theological
possibility, rather than a paleontologically unverified mathematical