(Class notes of Bill Carrell)
It is assumed by many that Charles Darwin “proved” the theory of evolution. The following quotations from his book, “Origin of Species” (Mentor edition) show how uncertain he really was, and on what shaky ground he built his towers of speculation. (Quotations from “Origin of Species” will be marked “Origin” with the page number).
I would like to add that as a missionary in Japan, where I frequently traveled on the train, I carried a pocket edition of “Origin of Species” with me, reading it through, and underlining the passages I quote here. I’ll admit I had some misgivings that I might find the effort unsettling, that I might be unable to deal with his logic and reason.
But I found Darwin to be his own worst enemy, thus the title of this section. I found many more reasons to question evolution than I had had before.
Following are some of my class notes.
Bill Carrell
****************
“I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible.” (Origin, p. 28).
It is obvious that he does not intend a fair examination of the evidence, but will present only those facts which seem to support his theory. “But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor was the record in the best preserved geological sections, had not the absence of innumerable transitional links between the species which lived at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory.” (Origin, pp 304, 305).
Note his almost complete lack of objectivity. The theory must be preserved, whether the facts support it or not! “We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind.” (Origin, p. 172). — also that it could!
DARWIN AND THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD
“The noble science of Geology loses glory from the extreme imperfection of the record.” (Origin, p. 448).
“Those who believe that the geological record is in any degree perfect, will undoubtedly at once reject the theory.”(Origin, p. 312).
This implies that the geological record is completely imperfect. How than could it be called on to support the theory? “To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer… The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” (Origin 309f).
How many “valid” arguments are required? “If we admit that the geological record is imperfect to an extreme degree, then the facts, which the record does give, strongly support the theory of descent with modification.” (Origin, p. 438).
If the geological record is as imperfect as Darwin says it is, how can it “strongly support” anything? The truth is that what solid evidence the geological record does afford is against the theory. “Now let us turn to our richest geological museums, and what a paltry display we behold! That our collections are imperfect is admitted by every one. The remark of that admirable paleontologist, Edward Forbes, should never be forgotten, namely, that very many fossil species are known and named from single and often broken specimens, or from a few specimens collected on some one spot.” (Origin, p. 293).
“Many great deposits requiring a vast length of time for their accumulation, are entirely destitute of organic remains, without our being able to assign any reason.” (Origin, p. 294).
“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 the theory.” (Origin, p. 287).
“One class of facts, however, namely, the sudden appearance of new and distinct forms of life in our geological formations supports at first sight the belief in abrupt development. (i.e. creation) But the value of this evidence depends entirely on the perfection of the geological record, in relation to periods remote in the history of the world. If the record is as fragmentary as many geologists strenuously assert, there is nothing strange in new forms appearing as if suddenly developed.” (Origin, p. 226)
Note how he simply rejects the evidence when it goes contrary to his theory.
“He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the successive stages of the same great formation? He may disbelieve in the immense intervals of time which must have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration has played when the formations of any one great region, as those of Europe are considered; he may urge the apparent, but often falsely apparent, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the Cambrian system was deposited? We now know that at least one animal did then exist; but I can answer this last question only by supposing that for an enormous period, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood since the commencement of the Cambrian system; but that, long before that epoch, the world presented a widely different aspect, and that the older continents formed of formations older than any known to us, exist now only as remnants in a metamorphosed condition, or lie still buried under the ocean.” (Origin, p. 336).
Note the wild speculations he makes to support the theory –disappearing continents, metamorphosed rocks (changed in form), the falsely apparent sudden coming of whole groups of species, etc. One animal — not described — he says is known to have lived in the pre-Cambrian period. Actually the existence of a single fossilized pre-Cambrian animal, even if true, is not enough to explain the “explosion” of life forms in the Cambrian period. At least some of the predecessors of the life forms in the Cambrian period must be found in the pre-Cambrian layer. This a reasonable necessity! But these fossils just aren’t there!
“That the geological record is imperfect all will admit; but that it is imperfect to the degree required by our theory, few will be inclined to admit.” (Origin, p. 431).
DARWIN’S THEORY ABOUT HOW THE EYE EVOLVED.
“In certain star-fishes, small depressions in the layer of pigment which surrounds the nerve are filled, … with transparent gelatinous matter, projecting with a convex surface, like the cornea in the higher animals. … this serves not to form an image, but only to concentrate the luminous rays and render their perception more easy. In this concentration of the rays we gain the first and by far the most important step toward the formation of a true picture-forming eye; for we have only to place the naked extremity of the optic nerve, which in some of the lower animals lies deeply buried in the body, and in some near the surface, at the right distance from the concentrating apparatus, and an image will be formed on it.” (Origin, p. 169).
Simple, isn’t it! Darwin begs the question of how the image formed on a raw optic nerve can ever be transformed into the image formed on the retina of a working eye, how that image is transmitted to the brain, and how the brain can receive and interpret it. “It will indeed be thought that I have an overweening confidence in the principle of natural selection, when I do not admit that such wonderful and well-established facts at once annihilate the theory.”(Origin, p. 253).
“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 aberrations, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree…. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies, and the variations be inherited, as is certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive to the theory. (Origin, p. 168, 169).
If the formation of an eye by natural selection is “insuperable by our imagination”, and if the idea is “absurd in the highest degree”, how could Darwin say that the numerous gradations from a simple light sensitive nerve to a complex eye, each useful to its possessor, “can be shown to exist”? No series of creatures possessing such intermediate gradations has ever been found. And where is the evidence that intermediate gradations, in the eye or in any other organ, imperfect in themselves but leading to the formation of superior organisms, have ever occurred?
Actually Darwin supposed a “Master Plan”, even as he denied the Master Planner. Blind natural selection, groping about from variation to variation, with no goal in mind, could not have come up with organs as complex as the eye, or the circulatory system, or the brain, or any other of the complex interrelated parts of the human body, not to mention the many parts of the millions of other living creatures on earth. If the body of each created being did not function according to design from the beginning, it is inconceivable that it could ever have evolved by natural selection.
“It has been objected that in order to modify the eye and still preserve it as a perfect instrument, many changes would have to be effected simultaneously, which, it is assumed could not be done through natural selection…. To arrive, however, at a just conclusion regarding the formation of the eye, with all its marvelous yet not absolutely perfect characters, it is indispensable that the reason should conquer the imagination; but I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at others hesitating to extend the principle of natural selection to so startling a length.”(Origin, p. 170f).
It seems rather that Darwin’s imagination conquered his reason! Not just a few but a great many “changes would have to be effected simultaneously”? And each set of intermediate changes would have to be beneficial to the creature possessing it. A change which is only of potential value, a million years down the road, would not be preserved. A non-functioning eye would be a handicap, and would cause the destruction of the creature possessing it.
The theory requires, from the beginning of the grand experiment, and at an absolute minimum, the eye mechanism, the optic nerve, and the brain center dedicated to vision. There is implied, really of necessity, a “Master Plan” in order that blind chance not interrupt the gradual process at any point along the line. After all, that bare optic nerve didn’t know it was becoming an eye. There must have been an almost infinite chain of experimental eyes, none capable of complex vision as we now know it. But each was supposedly a little better than the previous one. And each required a large number of simultaneous changes for progress to the next step.
This had to happen not only with the eye, but with the circulatory system, the nervous system, and all other systems in a living being. That such could have happened is indeed, as Darwin wrote, “insuperable by our imagination”. The fault lies not in our imagination but in the whole concept itself.
Darwin recognized the problem, that complex organs would have to develop an extremely large number of changes at one time, but he shrugged it off.
“Although all the individuals of the same species differ in some slight degree from each other, it would often be long before differences of the right nature in various parts of the organisation might occur. The result would often be greatly retarded by free intercrossing (among other things!). Many will exclaim that these several causes are amply sufficient to neutralise the power of natural selection. I do not believe so.” (Origin, p. 109).
Natural Selection’s inability to preserve for future use a change potentially beneficial but of no immediate use, is alluded to, but simply dismissed.
The same problem would occur when any new species was introduced into an environment. The whole environment would have to change to accommodate
- Bees, for example, have to have flowers from which to get pollen. Thus flowers, dependent on the bees, had to be created at the same time the bees were. Otherwise, how could the flowers, all needing to be pollinated, sit around for a million years or so waiting for bees to evolve? And how could the bees evolve the instinct and need to pollinate flowers if the flowers weren’t ready yet?
Evolutionists do not face the problem of symbiosis. This is that process where two different species depend on each other for things they cannot provide for themselves. Termites, for example, cannot digest wood. But they have parasites in their intestinal tracts which can. Both are dependent on each other, and must have been created at the same time. The complex interdependence of all forms of life is one of the marvels of creation. Darwin believed that the eyes of various creatures could have developed independently and more than one time! “… the eyes of cephalopods or cuttle-fish and of vertebrate animals appear wonderfully alike; and in such widely sundered groups no part of this resemblance can be due to inheritance from a common progenitor.” (Origin, p. 176).
How credulous can you get! As if formation of the eye by chance even once were not hard enough, he supposes it could have happened several times.
“As two men have sometimes independently hit on the same invention, so in the several foregoing cases it appears that natural selection, working for the good of each being, and taking advantage of all favourable variations has produced similar organs, as far as function is concerned, in distinct organic beings, which owe none of their structure in common to inheritance from a common progenitor.” (Origin, p. 177).
If similarity of organs does not prove relationship in this case, why suppose that it proves it in other cases? Evolutionists continually point to similarities between animals of different species as proof of relationship. Five digits in a bat’s wing, for example, is supposed to prove that we and they had a common ancestry. Yet in the case of an organ as complex as the eye, which is common to nearly all creatures, Darwin supposed that it could have evolved independently any number of times.
It should be noted here that many evolutionists believe that if conditions are right, life will inevitably evolve. This justifies for them belief that life must have evolved on other suitable planets in space. And if something is required, it will happen. This might explain the incredible statements in the above quotations