RMCF General Articles

Why is evolution considered a fact?

By: John William Browning, MS

Proponents of the evolutionary worldview expect everyone to accept evolution theory as 'fact.' When we deal with the issue of origins, we must realize that no scientific observers were there to record the events, (except Jesus, who gives us the eye-witness account of special creation ex nihilo in our infallible history book, the book of Genesis). When scientists theorize about the origins of the universe, the earth, or life on earth, we must realize that the discussion is based on assumptions, which are fallible at best and false at worst. But our modern textbooks are written as if they were true. The fundamental assumption upon which Darwinism is based is that similar body shapes and forms within different species indicate the existence of a common ancestor ('homology'). In the media and scientific literature, the occurrence of evolution is taken as a fact. Why, when there are no known observations of 'molecules-to-man' evolution?

The answer is in the confusion of terms. 'Microevolution', the limited change that organisms experience within kinds has occurred, and there are documented cases of new species arising in isolated populations. Evolutionists and creationists both acknowledge these observations. A dramatic example is the incredible adaptation of the polar bear, which survives the arctic winter and swims readily in the semi-frozen arctic waters, having web feet and hollow fur, which serves as a super-insulation. We know that these specialized creatures interbreed with grizzly bears, and this hybridization has occurred in the wild. (See http://fishfeet2007.blogspot.com/2007/03/horribilis-hybrid.html ) This dramatic example of 'microevolution' is not the result of new genetic information being created to form a new kind of animal.

One cannot extrapolate the existence of many varieties of dogs to explain the origin of dogs. They are all still dogs, and interbreed--therefore they are the same species, like Darwin"s pigeons. Polar bears and grizzlies must have descended from a single bear kind on the ark, which contained the genetic information for the polar bear"s adaptation, which was later expressed in the bear population that subsequently migrated to colder climates. Another amazing example is the scalesia tree found on the Galapagos Islands. In the tropical forest zones of these volcanic islands, the entire canopy consists of sunflower trees, with woody trunks and branches. Genetic studies have shown that continental varieties of sunflowers, almost always having herbaceous stems, actually contain the genetic information for woodiness, but it has only been expressed in the Galapagos in an endemic species, known as scalesia.

Isn"t it ironic that these examples of variation within kind are extrapolated and used as evidence for 'macroevolution' (molecules-to-man over millions of years)? In truth, it demonstrates the 'fact' of rapid diversification (thousands of years) of animals after the Flood of Noah into the myriad of organisms we observe today. The problem is that just because natural selection and speciation have occurred, the claim that all life has evolved from a common ancestor cannot be proven. Creationists should avoid any confusion that the evidence supports evolution, by not using the term 'microevolution,' but rather 'genetic variation.'