It is often confidently asserted on theistic evolutionist web sites and blogs that large-scale evolution is no longer simply a theory but a fact, so that disagreeing with evolution is like denying that the Earth is round. However, these claims go far beyond what the evidence actually warrants and strong evidence points in the opposite direction. The evolution we can actually observe is called micro-evolution, where there is an increase in the frequency of some members of a species due to a change in environmental conditions. For example, bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics become more predominant than those that are not. Insects respond in a similar way to insecticides. However, when the antibiotics or insecticides are removed, the populations return to normal, with the same distribution of characteristics they had before. And, most important, there is no evidence that these changes in the distribution of characteristics within the population ever produce a new morphology (or body plan), which is required for a new species to form. These are just plain observable facts, whether evolutionists accept them or not. In other words, micro-evolution does not provide a plausible account of macro-evolution.
In addition, Darwin’s theory claims that evolutionary change is undirected and the result of chance and therefore can be predicted to be gradual. If this is correct, then, as Darwin himself admitted, there should be innumerable transitional forms in the fossil record. Yet they are not to be found, as even the noted paleontologist and evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould admitted. Finally, in his book “Darwin’s Black Box”, Michael Behe has argued that there is a good reason why a gradual Darwinian path cannot explain certain biological structures: they are irreducibly complex. What this means is that like the common household mousetrap, many biological structures have a number of well-matched parts, the removal of any one of which would prevent the system from functioning. It is hard to see how such structures could develop gradually, since the simpler precursor systems do not work and so would not be selected. Darwinists have proposed “indirect scenarios” to overcome this difficulty, but these do not work either.
My point is this. In cases of legitimate controversy, scientists should claim ONLY that they have a working hypothesis that covers the data in a limited domain (micro-evolution) and allow the evidence for and against any larger claims to be freely debated. They should not assert facts where facts are indeed not in evidence. They also should not assert that it is science that establishes philosophical views when in fact these views were really adopted prior to any scientific investigation.
Originally posted at: https://www.ce-debate.org/blog/apology-implications-of-evolution