Part one – Counter Evolution

RabbiShlomo Cohen 

www.HIQJEW.com 

Anyone involved in Outreach has had to enter discussions regarding the merits of evolution in light of a belief in Hashem. Each person eventually settles on certain arguments. There are many to choose from. The purpose of this article is to outline as many of these arguments as possible. Only the highlights will be presented. The full argument with supporting documentation will require further research on the part of those interested. Some of the arguments will appear stronger than others, however the reader ought to see that the sum total of all the arguments must, inexorably, lead one to critically question the scientific basis of the theories.  Please note that dinosaurs have not been mentioned. This is so because they do not require any special argument regarding their existence or supposed evolution. (See Tiferes Yisroel at the end of Sanhedrin)

It is imperative to note that many Gedolim have had no problem dealing with the scientific advances of their time. Many support the idea of becoming familiar with these ideas if for no other reason than to be able to answer the Apikores. There is a fascinating glimpse into this concept discussed by the Maharal Me’Prague. The reader is urged to carefully study Nisivos HaTorah Perek 14 pages 59-62.. This same idea is reflected by the Tiferes Yisroel in Maseches Sanhedrin, Perek 10 sif katan 8.

The contention is that intellectual honesty will lead anyone to conclude that:

          a- current scientific theory has not yet achieved a state of complete understanding

or that

          b- Jewish thought is, perhaps, closer to the truth.

These two contentions may, in fact, be one and the same.

Insofar as the first contention, we must always bear in mind that no major scientific theory of one hundred years ago remains acceptable today in their original forms. The very basis of our understanding of the cosmos has radically altered in every particular from the ultimate vastness of the universe to the ultimate minuteness of sub-atomic particles and everything in between. This being the case, we may only assume that scientists will continue to alter their theories. Much that we accept as truth today will most likely be scorned in a few decades. If so, the term “scientific truth” is an oxymoron. It is, therefor, no small matter to base one’s belief on the shifting quicksand of contemporary knowledge.

People have been tortured, put to death, imprisoned and excommunicated through the ages for daring to question conventional wisdom. All too often they were subsequently proven correct The Catholic Church had to apologize to Galileo. That apology occurred 500 years too late.

Here are just a few theories that once held sway. Flat Earth, Geocentric universe, ether between the planets, diseases are caused by night vapors, bathing is unhealthy, the atom is the smallest possible unit of matter, all stars are on a dome equidistant from Earth, there is intelligent life on Mars, lead can be turned to gold, moving faster than 20 mph in a car is deadly etc.etc.etc. ad nauseum.

By definition, a theory cannot be proven, only disproved. In the course of the last hundred years, piece after piece of the theory of evolution has been disproved until little of substance remains. Darwin himself, in the Origin of The Species, wrote that many of his suppositions required proof. Scientists spent the next hundred years looking for that proof which was never forthcoming. Yet, it is the only approach taught in our schools. It is noteworthy that this theory has had a profound effect on our entire society. It has touched every aspect of the “hard” and “soft” sciences, the humanities, jurisprudence, medicine, art, literature and entertainment. Movies, television, toys, and games are affected. Newspapers, magazines and books, fiction as well as non-fiction, popular and academic, are all full of evolution. Accounting seems to have escaped being tarred with the brush of evolution. One wonders how long that will last?

Every child is constantly exposed by every teacher, every book and the weight of the entire media that this is TRUTH! It is not even presented as supposition. It is always given over as axiomatic, proven, acknowledged fact.

Torah study is the quintessential search for truth. The ostrich approach to Yiddishkeit cannot possibly suffice. Placing one’s head in the sand is resulting in the loss of Nishamos. Every Jew is responsible for every other Jew. Pirkei Avos tells us that we must know how to answer the Apikores. Those answers must come from a base of knowledge. Simply stating that science is dumb will convince nobody and brand you as the fanatical ignoramus. Answer the Apikores  “L’shitaso”, on the basis of his own stance.

PART ONE          

I     TIME

1- There has been insufficient time for the development of all the species. Indeed, it has been amply demonstrated that there has been insufficient time for even the simplest form of life to have evolved

[Most of the following figures come from Grzimek’s Encyclopedia of Evolution, Von Nostrand Publishers 1976.]

2- George Wald, in The Origin Of Life, assumes that a primeval soup of organic molecules somehow originated. He then proceeds to show that, given enough time, random combinations of molecules might form biologically relevant associations and, ultimately, life……. “The oldest fossils indicate that the most primitive cells arose early in the history of the Earth. Thus, relatively short spans of time were available for the origins of cellular life. The age of the Earth is some 4,500 million years, and the oldest known fossils are dated at about 3,000 million years. Formation of the Earth’s core and development of stable ocean systems and a solid crust required about 500 million years, leaving a gap of only 1,000 million years. During this early era small organic compounds must accumulate, biological polymers must form, protocells must arise, and a genetic and protein synthesizing system must evolve. These events are not consistent with the Wald hypothesis of random associations.” (Scientific American Life: Origin and Evolution 1980, pg. 34)

3- It has been mathematically demonstrated that the process of evolution is a statistical impossibility given the complexity of even simple life forms and the time allotted.  The numbers used go beyond the number of atoms in the universe. “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident is zero” (Physics Today 25 pp. 23-28). “The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10²⁰)²⁰⁰⁰ = 10 ^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” (Evolution From Space, pg. 24, Hoyle, Wickramasinghe: Dent, London 1981)

“In 1966 there was an inconclusive and often ill-tempered two day symposium at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology in the University of Pennsylvania entitled “Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution” Here it became clear that doubts among biologists were doubled and redoubled by physicists, mathematicians and engineers, some of whom were openly incredulous at the lack of a testable scientific basis for evolutionary theory. Few biologists expressed any uncertainty, on this occasion, about natural selection being the supreme explanatory law…  Computer scientists, especially, were baffled as to how random mutations alone could possibly enrich the library of genetic information. A mutation, they repeatedly pointed out, is a mistake — the equivalent of a copying error. And how could copying mistakes build up into a new body of complicated and ordered information?” (The Neck of the Giraffe Francis Hitching, pg. 82)

Murray Eden, Professor of Engineering at MIT said that, in plain language what the biologists were proposing went as follows: “Begin with a meaningful phrase, retype it with a few mistakes, make it longer by adding letters; then examine the result to see if the new phrase is meaningful. Repeat this process until the library is complete.” (quoted in The Neck of the Giraffe pg. 82)

4- Geologists have found 26,000,000-year intervals between appearances of multitudes of new life forms which have no apparent sources.  The Cambrian explosion occurred about 535 million years ago. At that time virtually all species of animal extant today appeared almost simultaneously, most with no antecedents. The Pre-Cambrian gives not a hint of what was to come. Angiosperms burst on the scene in the Cretaceous already divided into classes of which many are still here today virtually unchanged. Nothing in the Pre-Cretaceous rocks prepares us for their sudden appearance. (Discovery Magazine)

5- The oldest living things (bristlecone pines), the beginning of civilization, the start of agriculture, the first cities all date to about 5,000 years ago.

II- Dating Procedures

6-There are several dating systems in use. Each has an inherent weakness in its basis. The assumption that all processes that are occurring have always occurred at the same rate is attributable to Sir Charles Lyell, the father of modern geology. Recent research in gases trapped in the Antarctic and Greenland icepacks have shown highly significant fluctuations in the amount of carbon in the air. Any use of carbon dating is thus of little if any use whatsoever since it is impossible to determine what is actually being measured. “When the Carbon 14 dating method was first suggested, its discoverer, W.F. Libby was himself cautious about the evidence supporting the basic assumption. Since that time, a considerable body of evidence has been gathered to indicate that, in fact, there have been variations and this first basic assumption must be tempered with these observations. In addition, variations in the rate of Carbon 14 production as a function of climate, season and position on Earth have been found and analyzed extensively. Furthermore, it has been learned that changes in the Carbon 14 level can be brought about by changes in the cosmic radiation caused by changes in the Earth’s magnetic field.” ( Torah and Science and Carbon 14 in B’Or HaTorah vol.2)

“Calibration: Radiocarbon dating was at first hailed as the solution to the archaeologist’s dating problems. Later research has shown this enthusiasm to be a little too optimistic. Unfortunately, the rate at which C14 is produced in the atmosphere has fluctuated considerably…. Radiocarbon dating has been used to establish most of the chronologies described in this book for sites dating to the period between 70,000 B.P. and 1500 C.E….. Without C14 dates, world prehistory would be almost undated.” (People of the Earth–An Introduction to World Prehistory Brian Fagan)

“Four bone artifacts thought to provide evidence for human occupation of North America approximately 30,000 years ago are, at most, only about 3,000 years old, report archaeologist D. Earl Nelson of Simon Fraser   University in British Columbia and his colleagues in the May 9 SCIENCE. The difference in age estimates between the two types of carbon samples from the same bone is, to say the least, significant” (Science News Vol. 129, May 19, 1986) Similar problems may effect other dating systems.

This table shows other dating systems presently in use:

Method                          Mother Isotope               Half-life (years)             Daughter isotope

Uranium-lead                 U²³⁸                               4.498 x 10⁹                    Pb²⁰⁶

Uranium-lead                 U²³⁵                               7.13 x 10⁸                     Pb²⁰⁷

Thorium-lead                 Th²³²                             1.39 x 10¹⁰                    Pb²⁰⁸

Rubidium-strontium        Rb⁸⁷                              5.0 x 10¹⁰                      Sr⁸⁷

Potassium-argon             K⁴⁰                                1.3 x 10⁹                       Ar⁴⁰

Uranium- thorium           U²³⁴                               2.5 x 10⁵                       Th²³⁰

Ionium                          Th²³⁰                             8.0 x 10⁴                       Ra²²⁶

Radiocarbon                  C¹⁴                                5.7 x 10³                       N¹⁴

(Introduction to Paleontology)

These methods are used to date rocks, as opposed to organic materials. Each, of course, is based on the same basic assumption that these processes of radioactive decay have remained constant throughout. This assumption can never be proven.

lll– The Fossil Record 

7- Dating by means of geologic layers is totally haphazard. Textbooks would have us believe that there are actually places in which one layer is stacked above the other in an organized, orderly fashion that can be read as easily as a book. These places really don’t exist. The layers are often hundreds or thousands of miles apart, the layers are jumbled and are often found in different orders in different places. Conventions are held to vote on which site will be used as the “true” order on which research, papers and theories will be based. “ Not only have geological strata never been found to be contiguous in any one central location, but frequently they are in reverse order. A rock bed 350 miles wide and 6 miles deep has been discovered in the Glacier National Park in Montana. In order to solve a very sticky problem, geologists have conjectured that the rock was thrust 40 – 50 miles from its original location. For this rock is pre-Cambrian, approximately 500 million years “older” than the Cretaceous rocks in the strata below it” (Creation: The Origin of Life M.Trop, pg.45)

8- The fossil record has been a tremendous blow to evolutionists as it never once yielded a single possibility that would have fulfilled Darwin’s expectations. Darwin complained, “Innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the Earth?” His answer was the extreme imperfection of the fossil record. The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: The fossils go missing in all the important places. There are about 250,000 different species of fossilized plants and animals in the world’s museums. Compare that to the estimated 1.5 million species known to be alive on Earth today. ”Everything that has been found fits neatly into existing phyla but for a few isolated instances that presented science with a new phyla each of which was highly specialized.” (Denton Chap.8)

Professor N. Heribert-Nilsson of Lund University, Sweden, after 40 years in the field, sums up: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of evolution out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained by the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.” (quoted in The Neck of the Giraffe, Hitching, pg. 22) “…in a sense this account is science fiction”.(The Origin of Vertebrates  NJ Berril)

9- Only one alleged “missing link”, archaeopteryx linking reptiles to birds, has been ‘found’. Given the estimated half a billion to four billion species scientists claim have lived there are simply too many missing links. Darwin wrote that these connecting links were crucial to his theory. After one hundred years of searching they have simply not been found because they are not there.

10- “The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table. Moreover, such fossils as are found are usually so fragmentary (Lucy is the rare exception) and in such ambiguous surroundings, that many interpretations are possible.” (What Ever Happened To Zinjanthropus John Reader, New Scientist, March 1981, pg. . 802) Scant evidence, yet they would have us believe that they know enough to draw pictures and tell us how these early people lived. Paleontologists find a few artifacts, everything else is pure conjecture and fanciful imagination. It is important to remember that the fossil record contains only bones or teeth.  Soft tissue is only seen as a completely squashed rock image when it is found at all. It has been said that a Neanderthal man in a three-piece suit could stroll around Wall Street without creating any undue comment.

IV     The New Science of Genetics 

11-The discovery, in 1953, by Watson and Crick of the structure of DNA has brought about an entirely different understanding of how organisms propagate. The ramifications for evolutionary theory are awesome. One would have thought that the questions raised by genetics alone would have quashed the notion of randomness. As gene mapping continues, it seems likely that several proposals to revamp the entire system of classifications will occur. The concepts of genus, species, phyla and families may yet be forsaken for a system in tune with similarities in gene structure rather than similarities in physical appearance. Over time this will certainly change the way we view the relationships between living things.

Tracing the concept backward to the first living organism, biology is forced into the preposterous notion that this “simple” one celled organism contained within it all the information necessary to ultimately produce all the multi-faceted millions of species of plants and animals which followed it. The renowned French biologist, Prof. Grasse stated “To attribute such a power to a single substance, however complicated and exceptional its molecular structure may be, is in my view aberrant.”

12-The irreducible complexity of a cell, or its structures, forces a conclusion that these structures could not have possibly existed in a simpler form. Hence, they either never evolved or came into being as fully completed workable units.

Research sponsored by NASA, to enable astronauts to recognize the most rudimentary forms of life, suggested that the simplest kind of living thing would contain at least 124 proteins of 400 amino acids each.

Frank B. Salisbury in American Biology Teacher, concludes that the odds of the chance evolution of a medium sized protein of 300 amino acids was about one in 10⁶⁰⁰ – a number completely beyond our comprehension. Scientists generally rule out of consideration any event that has less than one chance in 10⁵⁰ of occurring. (quoted in The Neck of the Giraffe pg. 66, 67)

13- The current state of genetic research, unknown even 40 years ago, strongly mitigates against evolutionary processes. Genetic mapping should be expected to show a progression in gene complexity. As it happens, the salamander, for example, has 20 times more DNA than a human. (see Denton). There does not appear to be any correlation between the amount of DNA and the complexity of an organism. Geneticists have found only a 1% difference in the DNA of humans and chimpanzees. Such a minor difference does not account for the observable chasm separating these two species.

14- Selective breeding over thousands of years (e.g. cats, dogs, horses, sheep, cattle, rabbits) as well as in the lab (tens of thousands of generations of fruit flies) has only resulted in inbred genetic weakness, taken away an ability to survive in the wild and has never resulted in a new species.

“Luther Burbank, perhaps the most famous plant breeder in the history of the United States, once pointed out that nobody had succeeded in growing black tulips or blue roses, because the genetic material was simply not there. “I know from experience that I can develop a plum half an inch long or one two and a half inches long, with every possible length in between, but I am willing to admit that it is hopeless to try to get a plum the size of a small pea, or one as big as a grapefruit….In short, there are limits to the development possible”( quoted in The Neck of the Giraffe pg. 54)

“Ernst Mayr…selectively bred successive generations of (fruit) flies to try and increase or decrease the number of bristles they grew, normally averaging thirty six. He reached a lower limit, after thirty generations, of twenty five bristles; and an upper limit after twenty generations, of fifty six bristles. After that the flies rapidly began to die out. Then, Mayr brought back non-selective breeding, letting nature take its course. Within five years, the bristle count was almost back to average.”(quoted in The Neck Of the Giraffe pg. 57).

V      Logical weaknesses in the theory 

15- Aside from the statistical problems associated with spontaneous life forming from the primordial soup “At least five major factors limit the kinds of compounds that might have accumulated in the primitive ocean:

• 1st, there are limitations on what can be made by inorganic means;
• 2nd, all organic matter degrades spontaneously with time;
• 3rd, some substances are readily destroyed by radiation;
• 4th, many compounds would have been removed from the ocean by precipitation or adsorption.
• 5th, there are serious chemical incompatibilities among the constituents of living matter, and some of the components of the soup would react to form nonbiologic substances.

In view of these limitations, one is challenged to seek a series of steps toward life that are compatible with the environment.” (Chemical Events On The Primitive Earth P.H.Abelson, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 55 (1966) pg. 1369)

Furthermore, there is an insuperable problem associated with the survival of the first amino acids, assuming they formed spontaneously in the first place. Any oxygen in the atmosphere would have quickly degraded any primitive organic chemical. Yet without oxygen there would be no ozone layer to protect the amino acid from ultraviolet light which would have effectively ended the process. To date there has been no satisfactory explanation for this problem.

We are presented with an additional problem. Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. However, DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein!!! “How, when no life existed, did substances come into being which, today, are absolutely essential to living systems, yet which can only be formed by those systems?”  (quoted in The Neck of the Giraffe pg. 66)

16- All systems tend to deteriorate unless they are maintained. The more complex the system the more quickly it will tend to fall apart unless a sufficient amount of energy is put into the system to maintain it. Since life is a complex system, we would expect that over time life forms would deteriorate, species should get weaker.

” Deleterious mutations should be the rule. The reduction of entropy in living systems is such that it is probably a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.” (Reality Revisited Sassoon, pg. 89)

17- On the other hand, evolution should cause higher forms to retain all of the best traits. In fact, higher species lose many advantages. Theoretically, man should be the furriest, fastest, strongest, largest, etc.

18- The idea that mutations cause evolution may require not one, but two, of the same mutation occurring at the same time, in the same place, one male, the other female and both surviving and able to reproduce. More likely than not, which is still unlikely as identical mutations don’t often occur together, both would have been produced from the same mother probably resulting in heavy inbreeding which is known to usually cause genetic weakness, not advantage.

19- Furthermore, species and individuals are resistant to change.

-Individual mothers will kill offspring that are different.

– Groups of animals will not tolerate many differences and will kill or chase away any young that are too different. These young would then lose the protection of the group and would most likely die.

20- Adaptation requires either vast amounts of time or Punctuated Equilibrium. Over vast time spans, the probability of a mutation surviving and spreading through a population is statistically improbable. Punctuated Equilibrium should be observed if it is in reaction to change in the environment as is thought. It has not been observed even with major changes. Man has domesticated many animals, thoroughly changing their environment. Other species have adapted to living alongside man (mice, rats, pigeons etc.) yet none have undergone any real change. Dogs, descendants of the wolf, have been bred into many forms. Each retains its essential ‘dogginess’ without any real change, certainly no evolution into other species.

21- Convergence, means that an extraordinary number of unrelated species share many physical similarities that would have had to evolve separately. This concept has several inherent weaknesses not the least of which being that random accidents had to occur over and over with the same results under different conditions.

One of the most remarkable examples of this phenomenon is flight.

 The ability to fly had to evolve in four disparate types of creatures four different times!

• INSECTS — winged and non-winged appear simultaneously in the fossil record during the Carboniferous period 300 million years ago with no clue as to how they developed.
• DINOSAURS — Pterosaurs are found in the fossil record of 180 million years ago with no signs of earlier forms.
• BIRDS — Appear in the record 60 million years ago as fully formed creatures. There is some debate regarding the possible evolution of birds from dinosaurs however, the physiognomy of the two are too vastly different to be easily explained away.
• BATS — appear last in the record some 50 million years ago. They are the only flying mammal. No possible evolutionary explanation suffices. (The Neck of the Giraffe, Pg. 94)

22- Or conversely, Typology. All classes of life share amazingly similar structures. All mammals have hair, mammary glands, 3 ear bones, a diaphragm. All birds have feathers etc. If there are so many branches of development, why does all life share DNA and cilia in common? Why is there not more differentiation? Why do animals, thought to have evolved separately, share so many common features? (Denton, Chap.5)

23- Randomness could too easily upset the delicate “balance of nature” Too strong a predator, too effective a virus, locusts not stopping….- as it is, checks and balances are so finely tuned as to rule out randomness. (The story of the introduction of the rabbit in Australia.) “Additionally, no purely random process of extinction would have eliminated so effectively all ancestral and transitional forms, all evidence of the supposed evolution while leaving all the remaining groups so isolated and related (in vague ways).” (Denton pg. 36)

24- Darwin saw homology as a crucial argument for evolution. Homology states that members of the same class, independently of their habits of life, resemble each other in the general plan of their organization. “Indeed, homology has remained the mainstay of the argument for evolution right down to the present day. However, it has been found that homologous structures are often specified by non-homologous genetic systems and the concept of homology can seldom be extended back into embryology. There has been a failure to find a genetic and embryological basis for homology.” (Denton Chap.7)

25- Heritable variation can only occur in three ways.

• A positive variation that increases survival chances,
• a negative variation which decreases survival chances
• or a neutral variation that has no effect on survival chances.

The mutation rate must randomly utilize all three possibilities. All probabilities are then multiplied by a factor of three making the positive influence of heritable variation effective only one third of the time at best since the norm is negative variation.

26- Interspecie variation was thought by Darwin to be a driving force in evolution. In fact, he based much of his theory on his observations of finch differences spread across the Galapagos Islands. Interestingly, in 1967 the U.S. Government placed 100 finches from Layson Island to a group of 4 other atolls having no finch population. Within 20 years there were noticeable differences in bill structure among the birds on the 4 atolls. It would seem that bill differences are adaptive in nature and that the finch population readily changed in ways to match the food available. This, with no mutations, gradual or otherwise. The bill differences would have to be already built into the DNA ready to reprogram as needed. (Spetner pg. 202)

27- Sequential patterns, long thought to be the path of evolutionary changes, falls apart when studied carefully. “The “sequential” nature of the pattern is neither straightforward nor is it an indication of evolution”. (Denton Chap.5)

28- Punctuated equilibrium is merely the concept of creation but without G-d.

29- That the Earth was seeded from other worlds (a la Francis Crick) merely moves the problem back one step and entirely begs the question.  That Crick would even advance such a notion and that other scientists would take it seriously is an indication of how desperate they are for any equation that does not equal G-d.

30- Dependent structures had to either come on the scene in an immediately usable form or the structure is useless. Did the rattlesnake first evolve sharp hollow teeth or poisonous venom. Each without the other does not help the snake. Both evolving simultaneously boggles the mind. Both structures are also dependent on a host of other interconnected glands, nerve systems, musculature and reflexes.

31- Instinctual behaviors raise more questions. When the kangaroo evolved its pouch, what mechanism prodded the baby kangaroo to crawl into the pouch immediately after birth. Logically, any explanation put forth does not suffice.

32- There are simply too many huge evolutionary jumps. The change from cell division to egg laying to live bearing, herbivore to carnivore, gill breathing to lungs, photo-synthesis to digestive systems, non-skeletal to exoskeleton to skeletal etc. etc. all require massive changes across so many genetic proteins. To have occurred slowly places the evolving organism at a survival risk. To have occurred randomly, all at once, is beyond reality, or from a different perspective, to believe in miracles!

There have been no satisfactory explanations for the development of hair in mammals, feathers in birds, teeth, compound eyes, blood circulation, mollusk shells, poisonous snakes, segmentation or transformation of gill arches.

“Darwin’s technique throughout, according to the philosopher Dr. Gertrude Himmelfarb, is to convert possibilities into probabilities, and liabilities into assets. As possibilities were promoted into probability, and probability into certainty, so ignorance itself was raised to a position only once removed from certain knowledge.” (quoted in Neck of the Giraffe)

33- To state that “the fittest survive, and survival is the criterion of fitness” is a tautology”(Goldberg). That is, the statement suffers by dint of circular reasoning. Additionally, it seems that this reasoning may only be applied sparingly. Baleen whales sweep through whole swarms of krill. No matter how fit the krill, it will survive as a matter of chance rather than fitness.  Their theory is replete with similar arguments. Darwin’s book never proved a single thing. In fact, he explained how evolution, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, might have happened. He also exploited, to his advantage, the admitted difficulties of his theory. (Spetner, pg. 76)

34- Try to imagine the evolution of a bicycle to a car, or even a Chevy to a Caddy. To evolve from a cat to a lion would require far fewer changes than from a cat to a dog. There were fewer, less complicated steps involved from the invention of the wheel to the development of a Rolls-Royce than from a single cell plant to an oak tree.  Evolution by gradual change is “like becoming a millionaire by saving your pennies.” (Spetner pg. 52)

VI     Weaknesses in the “science” of evolutionary theory 

35-Scientists generally agree that, in all likelihood, life arose only once. Unique events are essentially outside the realm of research since they are non-reproducible.

• The greatest mystery is how genes came into being in the first place.
• Secondly, how did they become imbued with a meaningful set of instructions?
• Thirdly, what, in the coded information, allowed for increased complexity in certain instances while maintaining a status quo 99.999…% of the time?
• Fourthly, how could a single set of instructions contain information permitting the vast range of living things with all the differences in size, habitat, structure, etc. etc. etc.   

36- Macro-mutations are deleterious. Not only have beneficial mutations never been observed but it is a known fact that spontaneous abortion will generally rid the mother of a fetus that is too different.

37- This theory is non-observable, non-reproducible and thus, by their own definition, non-scientific or, more to the point, not science.  (See also Denton pg. 75) “Despite the fact that Darwin’s theory of evolution has won wide acceptance, it is nevertheless not experimentally demonstrable and it is impossible to verify it in the laboratory”( In The Midst Of The Scientific Revolution pg. 134, Prof. Aharon Katzir.)

38- Even in the laboratory, under the most carefully controlled conditions, where vast time scales have been reduced by removing all the variables and all the ingredients have been artificially introduced in the proper amounts, scientists have been unable to accomplish, by design, what they claim occurred by accident in the primordial soup.

VII  Academia

39- Vested interest in the academic world of publish or perish leads many scientists into making insupportable statements and then write a whole book to support them.

40- This does not even take into account proven hoaxes and falsified data, examples of which come to light with startling regularity. In 1908, after a particularly thorough exposure of his methods had received wide publicity, Ernst Haeckel wrote to a Berlin newspaper  “To cut short this unsavory dispute, I begin at once with the contrite confession that a small fraction of my numerous drawings of embryos (perhaps six or eight percent) are in a sense falsified — all those, namely, for which the present material of observation is so incomplete or insufficient as to compel us, when we come to prepare a continuous chain of the evolutionary stages, to fill up the gaps by hypothesis, and to reconstruct the missing links by comparative syntheses…. 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, schematized and constructed” (quoted in The Neck of the Giraffe pg. 204)

41- Many theories are constantly altered merely as a matter of convenience, consensus or to reflect current thought with or without any change in the underlying facts.  Even Einstein was guilty of forcing part of his theory into a preconceived notion. “ In 1917, a year after the completion of his general theory of relativity, Einstein tried to find a solution of his equations that would describe the space-time geometry of the whole universe. Following the cosmological ideas then current, Einstein looked specifically for a solution that would be homogeneous, isotropic, and, unfortunately, static. However, no such solution could be found. In order to achieve a model that fit these cosmological presuppositions, Einstein was forced to mutilate his equations by introducing a term, the so-called cosmological constant, which greatly marred the elegance of the original theory, but which would serve to balance the attractive force of gravitation at large distances.” (Steven  Weinberg, The First Three Minutes pps. 32-33)

42-Scientists consider themselves rationalists and search for systems that are logical and make sense. Evolution has become a dogma asking of its adherents a greater leap of faith than any religious belief other than idol worship. If it ever was, it is no longer rational nor does it make sense.  “Our faith in the doctrine of evolution depends on our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation” (The Dogma of Evolution, L.T. More)

“Patterson told me that he regarded the theory of evolution as “often unnecessary” in biology. “In fact,” he said, ”they could do perfectly well without it.” Nevertheless, he said, it was presented in textbooks as though it were “the unified field theory of biology “, holding the whole subject together and binding the profession to it. Once something has that status, he said, “it becomes like religion.”  (Agnostic Evolutionists- The Taxonomic Case Against Darwin , Tom Bethell, Harper’s Magazine, Feb.1985 Pps 51-52).

VIII    Teleological arguments – the argument from design

43- Simply put, this argument states that if one were to find a watch on a desert island it would clearly indicate that an intelligent being had been there. Similarly, design in nature speaks of intelligence and purpose.

Several of the best examples of this argument are:

Reproduction as a miracle. The process would seem to be outside nature. Life itself is abnormal in nature.

How has intelligence evolved? The brain is merely an organ. How it “thinks” is barely understood. Why should a larger brain equal greater intelligence or any “intelligence” for that matter?  The very concepts of abstract reasoning, conscience or altruism go well beyond the mere connection of synapses.

Transitions are puzzling in evolutionary terms.

Caterpillars only eat; they cannot reproduce. What prompted the caterpillars to evolve spinnerets, make cocoons, essentially liquefy themselves, metamorphose into butterflies, many of which are unable to eat but can reproduce.  All insects follow the same pattern. Other animals have similar changes such as tadpole to frog.

Transitions to modes of defense or offense raise the serious question of how those animals defended themselves or captured food prior to transition, and even more puzzling, during transition.  Often there does not appear to be a compelling reason for the change. Non-poisonous snakes got along, and still get along, quite well. What prompted only some of the snakes, in the same area, eating the same foods, having the same enemies, to change?

Survival tactics dictate that animals be able to breath and drink simultaneously. The throat structure that enables them to do that restricts the range of sounds they can produce. Human babies sleep much of the time. It is important to get as much nursing as possible in the short waking periods. Human infants are born with the same throat structures as animals, hence the ability to breath and suckle at the same time as well as a limited repertoire of sounds. “Shortly after 18 months, an infant’s larynx begins to descend in the neck. The larynx no longer locks into the back of the nasal cavity, so the breathing and swallowing pathways cross above it. On the plus side the pharynx expands and can create a broader range of sounds…

” As they require less sleep they lose the ability to breath and drink simultaneously. As the structure changes, the range of sounds broadens until, voila, speech is possible. (Science News, July 8,1989, Vol. 136 No.2 pg. 24)

E- Interdependency, symbiosis and parasitism require explanations. Flowers “evolved” nectar-producing organs solely to attract bees, hummingbirds etc. in order to spread their pollen. Firstly, how was pollen spread before nectar? Secondly, what did bees or hummingbirds eat before nectar? Thirdly, Whatever possessed the flower to assume that producing nectar would attract anything, let alone the very vehicle needed to spread pollen? All the above does not begin to address the issues of the positioning of the stamens, or that the bees would have the necessary hairs to capture the pollen tightly enough to hold yet loose enough to be released in the next flower and so forth.

F- Conditions on Earth are too exact. Were the planet much larger or smaller, closer to or farther from the sun, rotating faster or slower, life would not be possible. Were the atmosphere somewhat different, more or less water, or any of the water, oxygen or carbon cycles not operating life could not exist. Had the continents not formed or gathered at the poles, if the physics of water was the same as any other liquid, if the ozone layer wasn’t there, life would not exist.

G- “By the 1970’s, with the big bang firmly established, physicists began to think about alternative scenarios for the universe’s evolution. Say you tinkered with the value of gravity or altered, very slightly, the strength of the electro-magnetic force — how would this effect the path of the universes evolution? What they quickly found was that even the slightest tinkering with the values of physics derailed the whole process. Sometimes you ended up with the wrong kind of stars. In other cases you ended up with no stars at all. No matter what alternative scenario you tried to cook up, the most minuscule changes in the fundamental constants completely eliminated the possibility of life…. Any tinkering with the gravitational constant in relation to electro-magnetism would have resulted in a universe with no middling stars like our sun, but only cooler “red” or hotter “blue” one— incapable of sustaining life’s evolution. Any weakening of the nuclear “strong force” would have resulted in a universe consisting of hydrogen and not a single other element. That would mean no oxygen, no water, nothing but hydrogen.

“but these observations proved to be merely the tip of the iceberg. ….scientists would discover an increasingly daunting and improbable list of mysterious coincidences or “lucky accidents” in the universe—whose only common denominator seemed to be that they were necessary for our emergence. Even the most minor tinkering with the value of the fundamental forces of physics– gravity, electromagnetism, the nuclear strong force, or the nuclear weak force– would have resulted in an unrecognizable universe: a universe consisting entirely of helium. a universe without protons or atoms, a universe without stars, or a universe that collapsed back on itself before the first moments of its existence were up. Changing the precise ratios of the masses of subatomic particles in relation to one another would have similar effects….To take just a few examples:

–Gravity is roughly 10³⁹ times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 10³³ times weaker, stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster.

— The nuclear weak force is 10²⁸ times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium ( making water impossible).

— A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2%) would have prevented the formation of protons– yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5% would have given us a universe without stars.

— If the difference in mass between a proton and neutron were not exactly as it is–roughly twice the mass of an electron– then all neutrons would have become protons or vice versa. Say good-bye to chemistry as we know it — and to life.

— The very nature of water–so vital to life– is something of a mystery. Unique among the molecules, water is lighter in its solid than its liquid form: Ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and the Earth would now be covered in solid ice. This property in turn is traceable to the unique properties of the hydrogen atom.

–The list goes on.” (Quoted in God- The Evidence by Patrick Glynn, Prima Publishing 1997 pps 29,30)

“ All that we see in the universe of observation and fact, as opposed to the mental state of scenario and supposition, remains unexplained. And even in its supposedly first second the universe itself is causal. That is to say, the universe has to know in advance what it is going to be before it knows how to start itself. For in accordance with the Big Bang Theory, for instance, at a time of 10^-43 seconds the universe has to know how many types of neutrino there are going to be at a time of one second. This is so in order that it starts off expanding at the right rate to fit the eventual number of neutrino types.”  (Astronomer Frederick Hoyle, Quoted in God- The Evidence by Patrick Glynn, Prima Publishing 1997 pps 29,30) Glynn goes onto say that “ Hoyle’s notion of the universe needing to “know in advance” later outcomes captures the depths of the mystery. The fine tuning of seemingly heterogeneous values and ratios necessary to get from the big bang to life as we know it involves intricate coordination over vast differences in scale–from the galactic level down to the subatomic one–and across multi billion year tracts of time. Hoyle, who coined the term “big bang”, has questioned the very legitimacy of the metaphor of an initial “explosion”. “An explosion in a junk yard does not lead to sundry bits of metal being assembled into a useful working machine”, he writes.  The more physicists have learned about the universe, the more it looks like a put up job.” (ibid.)

H- Let us not forget garbage disposal. Modern cities fight a very real, ongoing, and expensive battle ridding themselves of accumulated garbage. Our solution is to merely ship the problem elsewhere and ignore it. Nature has an extraordinary means of disposing of  dead organic matter simply and effectively in a manner which allows for the reuse of virtually every bit of matter. The process is part of the food cycle!!!  Each and every living cell is possessed of  a garbage disposal system as well.

IX     Specifically Man

44- There are innumerable issues that specifically relate to the evolution of man.

• Cranial capacity, intelligence,– there is no correlation between brain size and intelligence in modern man. On the evidence, it appears that Cro-Magnons’ brains averaged slightly larger than ours.
• Ability to plan for the future and remember the past.
• Much wider range of emotions.
• Unlike all other primates, man does not conform to the pattern of a luxuriant coat of fur covering nearly the entire body.
• Speech and the wherewithal to pass information on to others.
• Ability to see colors [shared only with old-world monkeys]. {This alone raises a question. If all primates had a common ancestor, which was able to discern color, then all primates would either be able to see color or would have lost that ability. Otherwise we must presume convergence, that man and monkey independently evolved the ability to see color, leaving open the question as to why no other animal, so many others did develop sight, evolved in this manner. One would think that this ability has high survival possibilities.}
• Social conscience, value systems and altruism.
• Opposable thumb.
• Bipedalism– This simple adaptation required substantial changes in the feet, pelvis, spinal column, skull and all the related musculature as well as synapse and brain modifications.
• Sophisticated use of tools and the ability to shape environment to needs. 

X      Moral and philosophical issues

45- The increasingly secular outlook of the 19th century paved the way for evolutionary theory which then became the fundamental justification for that secularism. Virtually all late nineteenth and twentieth century value systems rely on the initial attack which evolutionary theory made against G-d as well as against mans’ responsibility for his actions. The philosophical underpinnings provided by Darwin led inexorably to the development of Marxism, Secular Humanism, Communism, Fascism, etc. A case may be made that Darwinism led, in a straight path, directly to the crematoria of the Holocaust.

Much of the moral turpitude of our times is a direct result of the belief that since we are merely animals and G-d does not exist, we need not take any responsibility for our actions. A very strong case can easily be made that moral behavior requires an objective, higher source. There is nothing wrong with murder unless one recognizes that G-d forbade it.

“ I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption… For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation  we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.” (REPORT, June 1966, Confessions of a Professed Atheist A. Huxley)

46- Although the vast majority of the tenets of evolution have been called into question, if not outright disproved, since no other satisfactory theory has replaced it, as a matter of convenience, scientists continue to rely on the theory. Although it flies in the face of rational thought, educated people will choose to be intellectually dishonest rather than admit that the only alternative, a Prime Mover, is required.

Liberal secularists are apt to consider themselves open-minded. They fail to note that Orthodox Judaism has asked, and answered, all their questions long since. A true Ben Torah is always open-minded. It is the liberal secularist who fails to consider the facts. They simply refuse to question the tenets and dogma they have accepted. Try debating them and you will be told that you are a religious fanatic and there is no sense in trying to talk with you. They are the ones being close-minded. The pot calls the kettle black and that is the end of discussion. Nowadays, it is heretical to question the idea of evolution.

Books, articles in Mathematical, Astronomical and Scientific Journals and speakers at scientific conventions have been raising serious questions regarding virtually all aspects of evolutionary theory for decades. One would expect, if not require, those who espouse any form of this theory to be busy countering any and all comers, yet, the literature is strangely silent.

“..Spetner’s calculation has been available in published form since 1964. In view of the central importance of this problem to evolutionary theory, one would have expected a flurry of attempts to produce alternative calculations, which would make the situation more palatable. But there have been no attempts at all.” ( Prof. A. HaSofer in B’or HaTorah, Vol. 3. 1983, pg. 13-21).