Episode 21 – Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: A Fair Assessment

Peace be upon you...

Introduction to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

In this episode, we assess the principal pillars of what is known as Darwin’s theory of evolution. Charles Darwin was an English naturalist who recorded many observations gathered during his travels or reported by others: similarities in appearance and anatomy between different species, for example, and patterns of geographical distribution.

From these, he assumed that all living organisms shared an origin that underwent evolution and diversification. An organism experiences small, cumulative changes, and nature then filters them. Beneficial changes are preserved, producing new species over thousands and millions of years. According to Darwin, nature meanwhile eliminated countless transitional organisms whose changes were harmful or useless.

In addition to the role of sifting, Darwin assumed that nature contributed to producing new traits in organisms; so that when an animal acquired certain traits as a result of its environment, it would pass these traits on to its offspring. In this, he agreed with Lamarck’s assumption that the giraffe, which is distinguished by a very long neck, once had a short neck, but as the natural conditions around it changed and it was forced to stretch its neck in order to eat from the tops of trees, its neck continued to lengthen generation after generation until it became what it is today.

The crucial point is that Darwin assumed organisms resulted from the combined effects of chance: without intention—without intention! In his words, no “plan of creation” brought these many species into existence. He emphasised this repeatedly in his writings.

Darwin published these ideas in 1859 in On the Origin of Species. Seeking a detailed mechanism for inherited acquired traits, he later proposed “pangenesis”: when nature affects an organism’s cells, its bodily cells secrete tiny substances he called “gemmules”, which collect in reproductive organs and pass to offspring.

And where did the common origin come from, Darwin?! Where did the first organism come from, the one on which you built your ideas and to which you attributed all living organisms?! Darwin did not clarify this in his book. But in his correspondence with the botanist Joseph Dalton Hooker, he explicitly stated that his view was that the first organism arose in a warm pond through factors such as light, heat, and electricity. In other words, Darwin agreed with the idea of “spontaneous generation” that was widespread in his time, when it was believed that living organisms could form spontaneously from inanimate matter. It was believed, for example, that insects arose from food remains, and that fly larvae arose from pieces of rotting meat.

The Basic Pillars of Darwin’s Theory

These, in brief, are the pillars of Darwin’s theory of evolution:

1. A living organism generated somehow from inanimate matter.
2. Nature gives the organism new traits that can transform it from one species into another.
3. Acquired traits are inherited.
4. Nature selects cumulatively, leading to higher organisms, thus assembling complex biological systems from simple successive changes.
5. The conclusion is that living organisms arose (evolved) without intention or will from a willing, choosing agent who knows what he is doing.

And on this table Darwin placed every living organism in the universe.

Evaluating the Pillars of Darwin’s Theory

Now... what is the general evaluation of those pillars upon which Darwin built this conclusion?

1. The Spontaneous Generation of Organisms from Inanimate Matter

Spontaneous generation from non-living matter was a myth refuted by experiments, most famously those of Francesco Redi two centuries before Darwin, and Louis Pasteur’s experiment published five years after Darwin’s book. Pasteur showed that organisms thought to arise spontaneously from matter such as food remains actually entered from outside in contaminated air. Pasteurisation, the sterilisation process used for milk, is named after him.

Spontaneous generation is, in fact, already contrary to reason: imagine an organism simply arising by itself from non-living matter! Yet they insisted on experimenting. They did, and experimental science refuted the myth, as reason already had.

2. Nature Producing New Traits and Passing Them On

Nature producing new traits through use and disuse, as with the giraffe’s neck, was another myth refuted by Gregor Mendel’s discoveries. Years after Darwin, Mendel showed that however varied offspring’s hereditary traits are, they remain within what already exists in the parents.

Epigenetics also refuted it, showing that external and environmental factors can change how an organism’s genetic material is read, activating dormant traits or suppressing active ones, without adding genetic material that was not already there.

Ordinary observation disproves inherited acquired traits. A blacksmith’s or carpenter’s acquired muscles, for example, are not passed to their children. Nevertheless, Darwin’s followers insisted on experimenting. They did: Weismann cut off the tails of nineteen generations of mice, only to find, after all that effort, that their offspring were born with tails every time! The acquired trait, a severed tail, was not inherited.

3. Natural Selection According to Darwin

What remains of Darwin’s theory? You may say natural selection is true. I reply: its valid element was neither Darwin’s invention nor his original insight. Everyone knows weaker animals struggle to adapt to harsh conditions!

Darwin’s natural selection, however, also meant producing complex biological systems through small, successive chance changes. His expansive imagination suggested that nature, use and disuse gave ancient organisms simple structures serving some useful purpose. Natural selection preserved them without knowing that their accumulation would produce an integrated organ such as a bird’s wing or an animal’s eye.

To understand Darwin’s logic in this, imagine a land full of scrap, over which large numbers of blind people pass. Each one randomly picks up a piece of scrap, then enters a large building whose door is closed after each entrant. Millions of years pass, and the blind people keep picking up scraps, dying and being buried beneath the floor of the building. One day, you open the gate of the building, and a giant Boeing airplane rushes out through the gate, piloted by one of the blind people, and flies into the sky!

You wonder: how was the blind man able to make the airplane?! You are told: he did not intend to make it! What happened with the blind people before him was that whoever picked up a useful piece of scrap survived and passed it on to those after him. One picked up a cloth and wrapped himself in it against the cold; another picked up a flat piece of iron and used it for shade from the sun; a third picked up an airplane steering wheel from the scrap and used it to stir his food while cooking; a fourth picked up a piece of glass and used it as a shield in his war against his blind enemies. These came in successive ages, passed their pieces on to those after them, and the pieces assembled without intention and without the action of an agent, until from them this great airplane that you saw was formed. So beware, beware of imagining that anyone intended for an airplane to form or fly!

By the same logic, Darwin regarded natural selection as blindly patching together organisms’ structures. A wing’s helping a bird fly is therefore a “pseudopurpose”, an apparent rather than real purpose. The eye’s seeing is likewise an apparent purpose, because no agent with will and choice intended sight or the flapping of wings. All supposedly arose through accumulated blind chance.

This is Darwin’s notion of blind natural selection. Besides its absurdity to any sound mind, scientific discoveries demonstrate its impossibility through “irreducible complexity” in every detail of organisms and their relationships. Their structures and organs are so complex and integrated that all their parts must be present together to function. Gradual formation is therefore impossible, even in the smallest living unit, the cell, which Darwin could see only as a simple blot under his microscope. Natural selection as Darwin portrayed it is thus another myth.

Summary and General Evaluation

On these myths, refuted by reason, observation and experiment, Darwin built history’s most absurd and foolish idea: that creation’s precision and perfection arose by chance, without intention, knowledge or wisdom! What remains is fantasy fit for a competition in which naturalists vie to amuse listeners with the wildest imagination: bedtime stories of the Frog Prince, the Swan Princess and Cinderella’s mice becoming beautiful horses. There is just one addition: an immensely long time! The fantasy puts feathers on dinosaurs chasing mosquitoes and makes them fly.

Another fantasy occurred to Darwin when he saw a black bear swimming for hours, mouth open to catch as many insects as possible. It reminded him of a whale opening its mouth to admit fish. Since they resembled one another, the whale apparently evolved from the bear! See page 184 of the facsimile of the first edition of On the Origin of Species.

Someone may ask: what about Darwin’s knowledge, his many observations and his keen eye for detail? Our answer is that he resembled a programme with many inputs but an incorrect equation connecting them, producing an incorrect result. His abundant information and extensive reading therefore did not help him.

It is vital to understand that observations of birds, reptiles, insects and so on are not part of evolutionary theory. We are discussing the theory Darwin claimed explained those observations. Apart from the observations and his formulation of “natural selection”, which he used incorrectly, what was new in Darwin was not true, and what was true was not new. Yes: what was new was not true.

It is therefore wrong to say “Darwin’s theory contained errors”. His theory was itself a collection of errors: myths refuted by reason and science, logical fallacies and absurd fantasies used to conclude that precision and perfection in organisms require neither intention, will nor knowledge!

Remember, brothers: these episodes establish a method and set our compass. Today’s methodological rule is that falsehood rests only on falsehood, never on sound knowledge or reason. Apply it anywhere and you will find it holds. Today’s example was Darwin’s myth that organisms arose by chance.

Follow-up Questions

Some will wonder: But did those after Darwin not close the gaps in the theory and correct its errors?! What is your response to the evidence from fossils?! From molecular biology?! From embryology?! From vestigial organs?! Is it not possible to reconcile the theory with the existence of God? If it is a myth, as you say, then why do most Western scientists believe in it?!

We will answer, my brothers, methodologically, God willing. We will begin with the claim of closing the gaps and correcting the errors, which is the topic of our important next episode, so follow along with us... Success is from God alone. Peace and God’s mercy be upon you.

Responding to the Claim of Closing Gaps and Correcting Errors

In the previous episode, we showed that Darwin’s fundamental pillars are myths refuted by reason, observation and experiment. Today we ask an important question: did his successors fill the gaps and correct the errors?

The truth is that Darwin’s followers realized that Darwin’s theory, in its original form, could not withstand scientific criticism, so they began earnest attempts to repair and modify it. These attempts led to the emergence of what is known as the “modern evolutionary theory” or “Modern Evolutionary Synthesis,” which attempted to merge Darwin’s ideas with the discoveries of modern genetics.

1. Incorporating Mendelian Genetics

The first of these attempts was the incorporation of Mendelian genetics, after Mendel’s work was rediscovered in the early twentieth century. Scientists realized that the mechanism of trait inheritance was not as Darwin had imagined it, through “gemmules” or the inheritance of acquired traits, but rather occurs through genes that pass from parents to offspring. This correction completely abolished Darwin’s idea of the inheritance of acquired traits, which had been a basic pillar of his theory.

But the question here is: is this closing a gap, or demolishing a basic pillar? When you prove that a basic pillar in the structure is completely wrong, this does not mean that you have closed a gap; rather, it means that the original structure was flawed from its foundation.

2. Random Mutations as a Source of Diversity

The modern theory also replaced Darwin’s idea that nature produces new traits in an organism with the idea of “Random Mutations.” Instead of the environment producing new inheritable traits, it came to be believed that random genetic changes, mutations, are the primary source of diversity upon which natural selection acts.

Here too, we are facing the replacement of an entire pillar of the original theory. Darwin did not speak of random genetic mutations as a source of diversity; rather, he believed that changes occurred as a result of use and disuse and the inheritance of acquired traits.

3. Natural Selection and Its Role in Evolution

As for natural selection, the modern theory retained it, but with a deeper understanding of the genetic mechanisms through which it operates. Nevertheless, the essence of the problem we referred to in the previous episode, namely the ability of blind natural selection to build irreducible complexities, remains. The modern theory has not provided a convincing explanation for how extremely complex biological systems arose step by step through random mutations and blind natural selection.

4. Evidence from Fossils

As for evidence from fossils, which is said to support the theory, reality differs from that. The fossil record, despite its vastness, does not show the gradual transitional chains expected by the theory of evolution. On the contrary, the fossil record shows the phenomenon of the “Cambrian Explosion,” where most major animal groups appeared suddenly within a relatively short period of time, without clear transitional ancestors.

The gaps in the fossil record also remain enormous, and many alleged “transitional fossils” are in reality disputed interpretations, or were later refuted. For example, “Archaeopteryx,” which was considered a transitional link between reptiles and birds, is now viewed as a complete bird with unique characteristics, and not necessarily an ancestor of all birds.

5. Molecular Biology and Embryology

As for molecular biology and embryology, they have revealed astonishing levels of complexity and integration inside the single cell and in the stages of development of the living organism. This tremendous complexity, which Darwin could not have imagined, makes the idea that these complex systems arose gradually through random mutations much more difficult.

For example, molecular machines inside the cell, such as the ATP synthase motor or the blood-clotting system, are examples of “Irreducible Complexity,” which we discussed. Removing any part of these systems renders them completely nonfunctional, meaning that they could not have evolved step by step.

As for embryology, it has shown that embryonic development in living organisms is a process of extreme precision and organization, requiring precise guidance of genetic information. The idea that this complex process could arise by chance or through random accumulations seems far removed from scientific reality.

6. Vestigial Organs

As for Vestigial Organs, which are said to be remnants of organs that were functional in our ancestors, this claim has greatly retreated with scientific progress. Many organs once considered vestigial, such as the appendix or tonsils, have been discovered to have important functions in the immune system or elsewhere. Even if true vestigial organs existed, their existence would not prove the mechanism of Darwinian evolution, but would only indicate changes that occurred over time, which no one denies.

Reconciling the Theory with the Existence of God?

As for the question: “Is it not possible to reconcile the theory with the existence of God?” The answer is that it is not possible to reconcile Darwinian evolutionary theory, in its essence that denies intention and will in creation, with belief in God, the wise Creator and Sustainer. The essence of Darwin’s theory is that living organisms arose by chance, without intention or will from a willing, choosing agent who knows what he is doing. This directly contradicts the concept of the Creator God who perfects and precisely orders His creation.

Some believers have tried to reconcile the two by saying that God created the universe with natural laws, including the law of evolution. But this reconciliation does not solve the core problem, which is that Darwin’s theory, in both its original and modern forms, sees no need for divine intention in the emergence of species and their complexities. Rather, it offers a purely material explanation that leaves no room for direct divine intervention or intention in design.

Why Do Most Western Scientists Believe in It?

As for the question: “If it is a myth, as you say, then why do most Western scientists believe in it?” This is an important question, and it has several dimensions:

1. Academic and social pressure: In Western academic circles, the theory of evolution is considered the only accepted explanation for the diversity of life. Departing from this consensus may expose scientists to stigma or even the loss of their jobs or research funding. There is great pressure to adopt this intellectual framework.
2. The materialist philosophical background: Many Western scientists proceed from a materialist philosophical background, Naturalism, which assumes that everything in the universe can be explained by purely natural laws, without the need for any supernatural intervention. Within this framework, the theory of evolution is considered the explanation most consistent with this philosophy.
3. Confusing observations with interpretation: Many scientists confuse valid observations, such as small changes within species or adaptation to the environment, with the Darwinian interpretation of these observations. The existence of change does not necessarily mean that Darwin’s mechanism is correct.
4. Ignorance of critical details: Some scientists may not be deeply aware of the scientific and philosophical criticisms directed at the theory, or they may focus on their narrow fields of specialization without looking at the larger picture.
5. The absence of an accepted material alternative: Even if major gaps exist in the theory of evolution, the materialist scientific community rejects any explanation that includes intelligent design or divine intervention, considering it “pseudoscience.” Therefore, they cling to the theory of evolution as the best available material explanation, even if it has shortcomings.

Conclusion

Thus, the claim of closing gaps and correcting errors in Darwin’s theory did not strengthen the original theory. Rather, it led to replacing its basic pillars with others, and it still faces deep scientific and philosophical challenges, especially regarding the emergence of irreducible complexity and the absence of transitional chains in the fossil record.

This shows us that falsehood is established only upon falsehood, and that attempts to patch it do not make it true.

In the coming episodes, we will discuss these points in greater detail, present more evidence and proofs of the weakness of this theory, and show how sound science and sound reason lead to belief in the Great Creator.

Follow along with us... Success is from God alone. Peace, God’s mercy, and His blessings be upon you.