Connor Muolo, MD, focused her educational career on biochemistry research; she is also a discipler and LFBI student. In this article, she shares a biblical and scientific perspective to disprove the theory of evolution.
—————
As someone whose career is in the field of science, it is common for me to hear my colleagues and teachers reference evolution. When I first began my degree in biology in 2014, there was a part of me that was afraid that I would face truths about evolution that would rock my faith and cause me to leave Christianity behind. At the time, I was young in my faith and wasn’t plugged into a local church. All I had was a sincere prayer to God that he would help me to know and accept the truth. As I began my classes, I was shocked by just how illogical and fallible the theory of evolution was from a scientific standpoint. I was soon introduced to Midtown Baptist Temple and the Living Faith Fellowship, and my growth through discipleship and Living Faith Bible Institute has equipped me to better address my fears and doubts from eight years ago.
I finished my bachelor degree in biology, worked in research labs as a student and research technician, and made my way through medical school. Through my course of scientific study, I have had many opportunities to speak with evolutionists about their beliefs. What I have found is that the key thing that must be said is the gospel. LFBI’s Apologetics course made this same point; the key to any apologetic conversation is to make one’s way to the gospel. After all, it is the gospel that has the power to save. Lengthy discussions of mutations and the conceptual issues in evolutionary biology often allow me to point to the gospel. It has also given me an answer to those who would try to steal my faith through fossils and neanderthals.
The Bible calls atheists fools because they have rejected the fear of the Lord and the proofs of his existence witnessed in nature (Romans 1:20-23, Psalm 19). It is important, then, to understand the proofs of nature. Specifically, I believe it is valuable when witnessing to evolutionists to look at biochemistry, the nature of mutations, the fossil record, and the witness of human history, the nature of matter, and entropy. I will purposefully keep things as simple as possible in this article, knowing that there is endless room for further study.
Biochemistry and Mutations
Evolution is statistically improbable. Biochemistry, which was first discovered in greater detail in the 1980s, agrees! Michael Behe, in Darwin’s Black Box, states, “Biochemistry has demonstrated that any biological apparatus involving more than one cell (such as an organ or a tissue) is necessarily an intricate web of many different, identifiable systems of horrendous complexity” (p. 46). For even one cell to work, it needs thousands of different proteins at different times depending on different circumstances and environments. When you digest your food, it is because of countless biochemical reactions that use different proteins (enzymes) to activate signaling cascades. These cascades are necessary for every aspect of organic life, and without them, the organism falls into disrepair and disorder. However, each process necessary for life uses up to thousands of interlinking proteins in interlinking cascades. If just one protein did not work, the organism would be harmed.
Evolutionists state that these proteins are all the byproducts of “accidental” mutations in genes that led to new protein products with new or improved functions. However, evolution rides on the idea of natural selection: genetic information is kept if it is beneficial to the organism’s survival. It is common scientific knowledge that mutations in genetic material are almost always negative. If an organism evolved a new protein, it would be most statistically likely to be a negative protein that causes loss of function. It would not be selected.
Now, a protein is only as useful as the cascade in which it works. Evolution implies that for life to occur, thousands of these proteins would need to evolve together to form these cascades. What would be the purpose of protein A, B, C, and D if protein E, F, and G did not yet exist in their perfect forms? The protein is only as useful as its cascade as a whole, and the cascade is only as useful as what it produces through all of its working members. In Darwin’s Black Box, Behe crunches some numbers and states that the statistical probability of a protein having a beneficial mutation is so low that it is statistically impossible. Likewise, if you crunch the numbers for the statistical probability of all of the proteins of a cascade evolving to fill that same cascade, it is also statistically impossible. Not only that, but the time needed for these mutations to occur would take longer than the universe is old.
When evolutionists say that the proteins needed for a cascade could all evolve into existence, they are speaking against their very own theory of evolution, in which natural selection selects for beneficial mutations (not meaningless ones!). Not only that, but we can see clearly that mutations in genetic information create harmful or useless products the majority of the time. Why would hundreds to thousands of these useless products evolve into a useful cascade over time? How about the thousands of signaling cascades that have been identified so far in the human body?
A good example is that of the production and use of ATP, one of the main energy sources in the body. Without energy, there is no life. How can something that is dead (without energy) create an intricate pathway for the creation and use of energy that interacts with many other pathways and cascades?
In all of this, it is clearly seen that the “horrendous complexity” of life that biochemistry brought to light requires a horrendously intelligent Designer.
The Fossil Record and the Witness of Human History
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines science as “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”
Observation
Evolution is split into two thoughts: macro and micro evolution. Microevolution is directly observable. The OED states that it is “evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period.” A well known example is that of a certain moth species that were either dark or light in coloration. As local coal factories coated tree bark with dark soot, the lighter moths were easily seen by birds and eaten. The darker moths survived to procreate. The moth population in that area became primarily darker colored. However, there was no change in genetic information; that which was already there is simply being expressed.
The OED defines macroevolution as “major evolutionary change. The term applies mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.” This encompasses the creation of new genetic information through mutations, influenced by natural selection over time. This is what most people are talking about when they reference evolution.
However, the issue is that macroevolution is not scientific. As we saw before, science is directly observable. Macroevolution has never been observed in all of recorded human history. There have been extinctions of creatures, but never the creation of new taxological groups over time. (Taxology is the practice of dividing items into groups due to similar features. For example: pencils, pens, and markers are all writing utensils; cooking spoons, dessert spoons, and whooping spoons are a different taxological group from writing utensils.)
The evolutionist makes the claim that it has not been observed because recorded human history has not stretched on for long enough. However, what we have seen in our section addressing biochemistry and mutations is that the amount of time for even a new protein to evolve is longer than the universe is old, even according to their measurements.
What about the fossil record, then? Evolutionary geologists have divided earth's history into several different epochs, influenced by how they interpret fossil layers. However, though we see fish with what looks like legs (mammals evolved from ocean-dwelling creatures!) and dinosaurs that have feathers (birds evolved from dinosaurs!), we do not see any transitory creatures. If evolution takes so long that it cannot be seen in recorded human history (which covers thousands of years), then there would need to be uncountable transitory species between dinosaur and bird. There are none. There are not thousands of fossils of fish with stumpy legs, and thousands of fossils of fish with slightly longer legs, and thousands of fossils of fish with longer legs on two toes…The record does not exist. Evolution is not observable.
Experiment
The best experimentation on evolution that can be done is inducing changes in phenotypes (physical expression of genes) over time. By experimentation, I can create flowers that are pink if I cross white flowers with red flowers. By experimentation, I can create broccoli with large edible clusters by selecting for it in wild variants. However, this is all microevolution. The genes are there; I just encourage the expression of certain ones over others. Now, I can create neon fish by adding genes from neon algae or jellyfish to the fish in the embryo using certain proteins that slice up genetic information and add my genes of interest, but that is not macroevolution.
Never has a scientist used mutations to create a whole new type of organism. Forced mutations cannot occur without the addition of outside genetic material that already existed elsewhere. They are artificial and man-made; they are not macroevolution. Thus, macroevolution cannot be seen through experiment.
Evolution is not observable. Evolution cannot be proven through experiment. Evolution is not scientific.
The Nature of Matter and The Second Law of Entropy: Logical Fallacies of the Beginning
The last proof I would like to look at is that of beginnings and decay. But first, we need to talk about matter. According to the OED, matter is “physical substance in general that everything in the world consists of; not mind or spirit.” The Law of the Conservation of Mass, which evolutionists agree to, states that matter is the same before and after any reaction. It is never created or destroyed. It is changed, but it is not destroyed. When you eat a burger, the matter is changed within your body. It isn’t destroyed; you just later have a date with the bathroom. That which was produced in the bathroom is later enjoyed by other organisms to create new proteins, et cetera.
However, evolutionists trace all living things to a discrete beginning. Many of them believe in what is called a “singularity.” For many, this is the Big Bang, in which a cosmic explosion led to the creation of amino acids and other substances necessary for the beginning of all life forms. However, the question is… where did the amino acids and other substances come from? Their answer: from nitrogen, carbon, and hydrogen present at the Big Bang. The next question, for which they have no answer, is where these elements came from. And where did the electrons, neutrons, and positrons come from that made these elements? Where did atoms come from? Where did energy come from to cause this explosion, as the first law of thermodynamics (to which they agree) states that energy is neither created or destroyed?
However you look at it, everything did indeed come from something. All material things have a beginning. Evolutionists state that everything came from something, but they do not yet know that something. I believe that God, who made all the scientific laws that our universe follows, is the something that made everything. God did not come from nothing; he always was.
Lastly, I will talk about the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy (disorder, chaos) always increases over time. This is directly observable and able to be proven through experimentation. Things always trend toward disorder. However, evolutionists tote the opposite. They state that order comes from disorder, that mankind is evolving upward and onward with the rest of creation. Disordered mutations create ordered proteins and intricate cascading pathways.
This is because mankind has always wanted to be God. It all began with Lucifer, who said that he will be like the most high. Mankind does not need God. Mankind can improve. Mankind can become better than his fallen condition and environment. Mankind will worship the creation through the powers of natural selection and survival of the fittest, and mankind will be his own god. Mankind’s authority will be himself. Nothing has changed with the invention of the theory of evolution. Things are the same as they ever were. The only difference is that a new label was slapped onto the temptation in Genesis 3:1-6.
—————
Sources:
Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free Press, 1996.
Futuyma, Douglas J. Evolution. 2nd ed. Sunderland, Mass: Sinauer Associates, 2009.
Turek, Frank. Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2014.
Connor Muolo, MD, is a member and discipler at Midtown Baptist Temple in Kansas City, MO.
