Changes

[[File:Evolution.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|201px|Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].<ref>[https://electricscotland.com/history/glasgow/anec305.htm The Duke of Argyll and Mr. Darwin  - As told in Glasgow]</ref>  See also: [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists] ]]  

[[File:Evolution.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|201px|Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].<ref>[https://electricscotland.com/history/glasgow/anec305.htm The Duke of Argyll and Mr. Darwin  - As told in Glasgow]</ref>  See also: [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists] ]]  

The theory of '''evolution''' is a [[Naturalism|naturalistic]] [[theory]] of the [[history]] of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs [[methodological naturalism]] and is taught in schools and universities). In biology, evolution is understood as a process that results in changes in the genetic material of a population over time from adaptations of organisms to their environments. The study of evolution can be performed on different scales: ''microevolution'' reflects changes in DNA sequences and allele frequencies within a species over time (e.g. mutations, interbreeding), ''macroevolution'' reflects large-scale changes at the species level which result from the accumulation of numerous small changes on the microevolutionary scale. [[Natural selection]] is one commonly cited mechanism for driving evolution, but there are others such a genetic drift.<ref>[https://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/evolution-78/ Evolution - Nature (Journal)]</ref> Currently, there are several [[theories of evolution]].  See also: [[Theistic evolution]].

The theory of '''evolution''' is a [[Naturalism|naturalistic]] [[theory]] of the [[history]] of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs [[methodological naturalism]] and is taught in schools and universities). In biology, evolution is understood as a process that results in changes in the genetic material of a population over time from adaptations of organisms to their environments. The study of evolution can be performed on different scales: ''[[microevolution]]'' reflects changes in DNA sequences and allele frequencies within a species over time (e.g. mutations, interbreeding), ''[[macroevolution]]'' reflects large-scale changes at the species level which result from the accumulation of numerous small changes on the microevolutionary scale. [[Natural selection]] is one commonly cited mechanism for driving evolution, but there are others such a genetic drift.<ref>[https://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/evolution-78/ Evolution - Nature (Journal)]</ref> Currently, there are several [[theories of evolution]].  See also: [[Theistic evolution]].

Evolution is often linked to Charles Darwin and [[natural selection]]. However, Alfred Russel Wallace who was the co-discoverer of natural selection along with [[Charles Darwin]], argued that nature exhibited design and purpose with evolution.<ref>Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. [https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00wallialaThe World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose]</ref> Wallace's views challenge the Darwinian view of evolution and allow for a an overlap between design, intelligence, purpose with natural selection and evolution.<ref name="intelligent evolution">Flannery, M.A. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Intelligent Evolution and Natural Theology. Religions 2020, 11, 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11060316</ref><ref>Flannery, Michael A. 2011. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism, rev ed. Riesel: Erasmus Press</ref>

Evolution is often linked to Charles Darwin and [[natural selection]]. However, naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace was the co-discoverer of natural selection along with [[Charles Darwin]]. Wallace eventually came to believe that nature exhibited design and purpose with evolution.<ref>Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. [https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00walliala The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose]</ref> His works on natural selection were around in the 1850s and some works on the uniqueness of man occurred in the 1860s.<ref name="wallacenat">Alfred Russel Wallace. [https://wallace-online.org/converted/pdf/1895_NaturalSelection_S725%5B2d%5D.pdf Natural Selection and Tropical Nature: Essays on Descriptive and Theoretical Biology] important works on natural selection: "The Law which has Regulated the Introduction of New Species" (1855) and of course "On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type" (1858); on the the limits on natural selection and man see "Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man" (1869)</ref> Wallace's views challenge the Darwinian view of evolution and allow for a an overlap between design, intelligence, purpose with natural selection and evolution.<ref name="intelligent evolution">Flannery, M.A. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Intelligent Evolution and Natural Theology. Religions 2020, 11, 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11060316</ref><ref>Flannery, Michael A. 2011. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism, rev ed. Riesel: Erasmus Press</ref> Before 1864, Wallace also believed that man was a result of natural selection, but by 1869, Wallace had changed his view since he felt that natural selection was insufficient to craft man's features like rationality, and postulated that higher intelligences may have been involved in man's evolution.<ref>Malcolm Jay Kottler. [https://www.newdualism.org/papers/M.Kottler/Kottler-Isis1974.pdf Alfred Russel Wallace, the Origin of Man, and Spiritualism]. Isis, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Jun., 1974), pp. 144-192 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/229369."In 1864 Wallace was firmly committed to the action of natural selection alone in the development of man. In 1869 he first expressed publicly his new point of view that natural selection was unable to explain the origin of man and that higher intelligences guiding man's development were required."</ref>

The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory.<ref>

 

The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory or in the wild.<ref>

*Russell Grigg and Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4280 Intelligent Design—‘A War on Science’ says the BBC

*Russell Grigg and Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4280 Intelligent Design—‘A War on Science’ says the BBC

*Paul McHugh, [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2477 The Weekly Standard, Teaching Darwin: Why we're still fighting about biology textbook. March 28, 2005]</ref> Dr. [[Nils Heribert-Nilsson]], Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in [[Sweden]] and a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."<ref>

*Paul McHugh, [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2477 The Weekly Standard, Teaching Darwin: Why we're still fighting about biology textbook. March 28, 2005]</ref> Dr. [[Nils Heribert-Nilsson]], Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in [[Sweden]] and a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."<ref>

* [http://creation.com/content/view/5654 Ediacaran ‘explosion’]

* [http://creation.com/content/view/5654 Ediacaran ‘explosion’]

</ref> In 1981, there were at least a hundred million fossils that were cataloged and identified in the world's museums.<ref>[http://www.fossils.me/tag/darwinism Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129]</ref>  Despite the large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at [[Oxford University]], was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or [[Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuationist]], uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to [[Creationism|special creation]]."<ref>Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831</ref>  

</ref> In 1981, there were at least a hundred million fossils that were cataloged and identified in the world's museums.<ref>[http://www.fossils.me/tag/darwinism Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129]</ref>  Despite the large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at [[Oxford University]], was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or [[Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuationist]], uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to [[Creationism|special creation]]."<ref>Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831</ref>  

 

In addition to the evolutionary position lacking evidential support and being counterevidential, the great intellectuals in history such as [[Archimedes]], [[Aristotle]], [[St. Augustine]], [[Francis Bacon]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[Lord Kelvin]] did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution.<ref>

In addition to the evolutionary position lacking evidential support and being counterevidential, the great intellectuals in history such as [[Archimedes]], [[Aristotle]], [[St. Augustine]], [[Francis Bacon]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[Lord Kelvin]] did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution.<ref>

* Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon, [http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0104D.pdf Darwin, Evolution, and His Critics - Part 3, How Was Darwin's Theory of Evolution First Received]

* Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon, [http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0104D.pdf Darwin, Evolution, and His Critics - Part 3, How Was Darwin's Theory of Evolution First Received]

On June 28, 2022, ''[[The Guardian]]'' published an article entitled ''Do we need a new theory of evolution?'' which indicated: "A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul... Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs rests upon the theory of [[natural selection]]."<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution ''Do we need a new theory of evolution?''] by Stephen Buranyi, The Guardian,  June 28, 2022</ref>

On June 28, 2022, ''[[The Guardian]]'' published an article entitled ''Do we need a new theory of evolution?'' which indicated: "A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul... Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs rests upon the theory of [[natural selection]]."<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution ''Do we need a new theory of evolution?''] by Stephen Buranyi, The Guardian,  June 28, 2022</ref>

==Teaching evolution and views of the public & professionals==   

==Teaching evolution & views of experts==   

 

In 2024, the assistant to [[Russia]]n Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, former [[Chechen]] Prime Minister Muslim Khuchiev called for a ban on the teaching of Darwinian theory in schools at a meeting of the All-Russian Parents' Committee. "Everyone knows that this is an erroneous theory, it goes against [[religion]]. This is the first step, I believe, in the [[spiritual]] degradation of children."<ref>[https://meduza.io/news/2024/09/20/pomoschnik-mishustina-predlozhil-ubrat-teoriyu-darvina-iz-shkolnoy-programmy-ideyu-podderzhal-pravoslavnyy-oligarh-konstantin-malofeev Mishustin's assistant suggested removing Darwin's theory from the school curriculum. The idea was supported by the "Orthodox oligarch" Konstantin Malofeev], Meduza, 20 September 2024. meduza.io</ref>

In 2024, the assistant to [[Russia]]n Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, former [[Chechen]] Prime Minister Muslim Khuchiev called for a ban on the teaching of Darwinian theory in schools at a meeting of the All-Russian Parents' Committee. "Everyone knows that this is an erroneous theory, it goes against [[religion]]. This is the first step, I believe, in the [[spiritual]] degradation of children."<ref>[https://meduza.io/news/2024/09/20/pomoschnik-mishustina-predlozhil-ubrat-teoriyu-darvina-iz-shkolnoy-programmy-ideyu-podderzhal-pravoslavnyy-oligarh-konstantin-malofeev Mishustin's assistant suggested removing Darwin's theory from the school curriculum. The idea was supported by the "Orthodox oligarch" Konstantin Malofeev], Meduza, 20 September 2024. meduza.io</ref>

{{cquote|Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.

{{cquote|Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.

Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that [[creationism]] or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm</ref>}}

Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that [[creationism]] or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm</ref>}} [[Johns Hopkins University]] Press reported in 2014: "Over the past forty years, [[creationism]] has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames."<ref>[https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/creationism-europe Creationism spreading in Europe]</ref> In addition, [[China]] has the world's largest [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] and the rapid growth of biblical [[creationism]]/[[Evangelical Christianity|Evangelical Christianity]] in China may have a significant impact on the number of individuals in the world who believe in evolution and also on [[global atheism]] (see: [[China and biblical creationism]] and [[Asian atheism]]).

[[Johns Hopkins University]] Press reported in 2014: "Over the past forty years, [[creationism]] has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames."<ref>[https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/creationism-europe Creationism spreading in Europe]</ref> In addition, [[China]] has the world's largest [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] and the rapid growth of biblical [[creationism]]/[[Evangelical Christianity|Evangelical Christianity]] in China may have a significant impact on the number of individuals in the world who believe in evolution and also on [[global atheism]] (see: [[China and biblical creationism]] and [[Asian atheism]]).  

==History of the concept of evolution and natural selection==

==History of the concept of natural selection==

The theory of natural selection was published by naturalist [[Darwin, Charles|Charles Darwin]] in his book ''[[The Origin of Species|On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life]]'' (1859) and also by Alfred Russel Wallace in his paper ''On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection'' (1858). Charles Lyell and Joseph Dalton Hooker decided on a joint publication at the Linnean Society of London in 1858 of Wallace's paper together with an extract from Darwin's 1844 essay and his letter to Asa Gray and summarized:<ref>Charles Darwin, Alfred Wallace, On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 3, Issue 9, August 1858, Pages 45–62, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1858.tb02500.x</ref><ref>[https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2311239#page/127/mode/1up 1858 Online link to Summary by Joseph Hooker and Charles Lyell]]</ref>

The theory of natural selection was published by naturalist [[Darwin, Charles|Charles Darwin]] in his book ''[[The Origin of Species|On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life]]'' (1859) and also by Alfred Russel Wallace in his paper ''On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection'' (1858). Wallace's works on natural selection were around in the 1850s and some works on the uniqueness of man occurred in the 1860s.<ref name="wallacenat" /> Charles Lyell and Joseph Dalton Hooker decided on a joint publication at the Linnean Society of London in 1858 of Wallace's paper together with an extract from Darwin's 1844 essay and his letter to Asa Gray and summarized:<ref>Charles Darwin, Alfred Wallace, On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 3, Issue 9, August 1858, Pages 45–62, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1858.tb02500.x</ref><ref>[https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2311239#page/127/mode/1up 1858 Online link to Summary by Joseph Hooker and Charles Lyell]]</ref>

{{cquote|The gentlemen having, independently and unknown to one another, conceived the same very ingenious theory to account for the appearance and perpetuation of varieties and of specific forms on our planet, and both fairly claim the merit of being original thinkers in this important line of inquiry; but neither of them having published his views, though Mr. Darwin has for many years past been repeatedly urged by us to do so, and both authors having now unreservedly placed their papers in our hands, we think it would best promote the interests of science that a selection from them should be laid before the Linnean Society. Taken in the order of their dates, they consist of:-

{{cquote|The gentlemen having, independently and unknown to one another, conceived the same very ingenious theory to account for the appearance and perpetuation of varieties and of specific forms on our planet, and both fairly claim the merit of being original thinkers in this important line of inquiry; but neither of them having published his views, though Mr. Darwin has for many years past been repeatedly urged by us to do so, and both authors having now unreservedly placed their papers in our hands, we think it would best promote the interests of science that a selection from them should be laid before the Linnean Society. Taken in the order of their dates, they consist of:-

   

   

Darwin did not first propose in his book ''Origin of Species'' that man had descended from non-human ancestors. Darwin's theory of evolution was incorporated later in Darwin's book entitled ''[[Descent of Man]]''.

Darwin did not first propose in his book ''Origin of Species'' that man had descended from non-human ancestors. Darwin's theory of evolution was incorporated later in Darwin's book entitled ''[[Descent of Man]]''.

As far as the history of the theory of evolution, although Darwin is well known when it comes to the early advocacy of the evolutionary position in the [[Western world]], evolutionary ideas were taught by the [[Ancient Greece|ancient Greeks]] as early as the 7th century B.C.<ref>Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/naturalism.asp Evolutionary Naturalism: An Ancient Idea] First published: TJ 15(2):77–80 August 2001</ref> The concept of naturalistic evolution differs from the concept of [[Theistic Evolution|theistic evolution]] in that it states [[God]] does not guide the posited process of [[macroevolution]].<ref>Dr. Werner Gitt, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1749/ 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution] First published: Creation 17(4):49–51, September 1995</ref>

As far as the history of the theory of evolution, although Darwin is well known when it comes to the early advocacy of the evolutionary position in the [[Western world]], evolutionary ideas were taught by the [[Ancient Greece|ancient Greeks]] as early as the 7th century B.C.<ref>Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/naturalism.asp Evolutionary Naturalism: An Ancient Idea] First published: TJ 15(2):77–80 August 2001</ref> The concept of naturalistic evolution differs from the concept of [[Theistic Evolution|theistic evolution]] in that it states [[God]] does not guide the posited process of [[macroevolution]].<ref>Dr. Werner Gitt, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1749/ 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution] First published: Creation 17(4):49–51, September 1995</ref>

*[https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/12-arguments-evolutionists-should-avoid/ 12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid] by Answers in Genesis</ref> See also: [[Causes of evolutionary belief]]

*[https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/12-arguments-evolutionists-should-avoid/ 12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid] by Answers in Genesis</ref> See also: [[Causes of evolutionary belief]]

== Theory of Evolution - Mutations and the Life Sciences in General ==

== Mutations and the Life Sciences ==

''See also:'' [[Theories of evolution]]

''See also:'' [[Theories of evolution]]

See also: [[Atheism and equivocation]]

See also: [[Atheism and equivocation]]

=== Biological diversity - evolution contrasted with biblical creation science ===

=== Biological diversity ===

 

Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote:

Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote:

{{cquote|In contrast, [[creationism|creationists]], starting from the [[Bible]], believe that [[God]] created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of [[information]]. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.

{{cquote|In contrast, [[creationism|creationists]], starting from the [[Bible]], believe that [[God]] created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of [[information]]. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.

All ([[sexual reproduction|sexually reproducing]]) organisms contain their genetic information in paired form. Each offspring inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and half from its father. So there are two [[gene|genes]] at a given position (locus, plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic. An organism can be [[heterozygous]] at a given locus, meaning it carries different forms ([[allele|alleles]]) of this gene... So there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original created kinds could each give rise to many different varieties. In fact, the originally created kinds would have had much more heterozygosity than their modern, more specialized descendants. No wonder [[Francisco J. Ayala|Ayala]] pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations. Many varieties can arise simply by two previously hidden [[recessive allele|recessive alleles]] coming together. However, Ayala believes the genetic information came ultimately from mutations, not creation. His belief is contrary to [http://creation.com/information-theory-questions-and-answers information theory], as shown in [http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-9-is-the-design-explanation-legitimate chapter 9 on ‘Design’].<ref>http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-9-is-the-design-explanation-legitimate</ref>}}

All ([[sexual reproduction|sexually reproducing]]) organisms contain their genetic information in paired form. Each offspring inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and half from its father. So there are two [[gene|genes]] at a given position (locus, plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic. An organism can be [[heterozygous]] at a given locus, meaning it carries different forms ([[allele|alleles]]) of this gene... So there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original created kinds could each give rise to many different varieties. In fact, the originally created kinds would have had much more heterozygosity than their modern, more specialized descendants. No wonder [[Francisco J. Ayala|Ayala]] pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations. Many varieties can arise simply by two previously hidden [[recessive allele|recessive alleles]] coming together. However, Ayala believes the genetic information came ultimately from mutations, not creation. His belief is contrary to [http://creation.com/information-theory-questions-and-answers information theory], as shown in [http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-9-is-the-design-explanation-legitimate chapter 9 on ‘Design’].<ref>http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-9-is-the-design-explanation-legitimate</ref>}}

=== Prominent evolutionists have indicated that the origin of life is part of the evolutionary model ===

=== Origin of life ===

Dr. Don Batten of [[Creation Ministries International]] has pointed out that prominent evolutionists, such as [[PZ Myers]] and Nick Matzke, have indicated that a naturalistic postulation of the [[origin of life]] (often called [[abiogenesis]]), is part of the evolutionary model.<ref>[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]</ref> This poses a very serious problem for the evolutionary position as the evidence clearly points life being a [[Intelligent design|product of design]] and not through naturalistic processes.<ref>[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]</ref>

Dr. Don Batten of [[Creation Ministries International]] has pointed out that prominent evolutionists, such as [[PZ Myers]] and Nick Matzke, have indicated that a naturalistic postulation of the [[origin of life]] (often called [[abiogenesis]]), is part of the evolutionary model.<ref>[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]</ref> This poses a very serious problem for the evolutionary position as the evidence clearly points life being a [[Intelligent design|product of design]] and not through naturalistic processes.<ref>[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]</ref>

Sanford's book ''Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome'' explains why human [[Deoxyribonucleic acid|DNA]] is inexorably deteriorating at an alarming rate, thus cannot be millions of years old.<ref>[http://creation.com/john-sanford John Sanford - bio] at [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref>  

Sanford's book ''Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome'' explains why human [[Deoxyribonucleic acid|DNA]] is inexorably deteriorating at an alarming rate, thus cannot be millions of years old.<ref>[http://creation.com/john-sanford John Sanford - bio] at [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref>  

The evolutionist Michael Lynch wrote in the  ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America'' in a December 3, 2009 article entitled: ''Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation'' (taken from the abstract):  

The evolutionist Michael Lynch wrote in the  ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America'' in a December 3, 2009 article entitled: ''Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation'' (taken from the abstract):  

{{cquote|Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed." <ref>[http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961 ''Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation'']</ref>}}

{{cquote|Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed." <ref>[http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961 ''Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation'']</ref>}}

== Evolution - Implications of Genetic Code and Processing of Biological Information ==

== Genetic Code and Biological Information ==

[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|150px|left|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] published an article favoring [[intelligent design]] in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the evolutionary position.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1489</ref>]]

[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] published an article favoring [[intelligent design]] in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the evolutionary position.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1489</ref>]]

:''See main articles: [[Creation science]], [[Intelligent design]], and [[creationism]]''

:''See main articles: [[Creation science]], [[Intelligent design]], and [[creationism]]''

Creation scientists and [[intelligent design]] advocates point out that the [[genetic code]] ([[Deoxyribonucleic acid|DNA]] code), genetic programs, and biological information argue for an intelligent cause in regards the origins question and assert it is one of the many problems of the theory of evolution.<ref name="waltbrown-scientificcreation">Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creation, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html Codes, Programs, and Information]</ref><ref>

Creation scientists and [[intelligent design]] advocates point out that the [[genetic code]] ([[Deoxyribonucleic acid|DNA]] code), genetic programs, and biological information argue for an intelligent cause in regards the origins question and assert it is one of the many problems of the theory of evolution.<ref name="waltbrown-scientificcreation">Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creation, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html Codes, Programs, and Information]</ref><ref>

In the peer reviewed biology journal ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms and proposed an intelligent cause as the best explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.<ref>Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]], [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177 ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'', 117(2):213-239. 2004, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories]</ref> The editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Dr. [[Richard Sternberg]], [[Smithsonian-Sternberg affair|came under intense scrutiny and persecution for the aforementioned article]] published by Dr. Meyer.

In the peer reviewed biology journal ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms and proposed an intelligent cause as the best explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.<ref>Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]], [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177 ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'', 117(2):213-239. 2004, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories]</ref> The editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Dr. [[Richard Sternberg]], [[Smithsonian-Sternberg affair|came under intense scrutiny and persecution for the aforementioned article]] published by Dr. Meyer.

== Theory of evolution and little scientific consensus  ==

== Scientific consensus  ==

''See also:'' [[Theory of evolution and little consensus]] and [[Theories of evolution]]

''See also:'' [[Theory of evolution and little consensus]] and [[Theories of evolution]]

One of the regrettable consequences of Charles Darwin’s ''On the Origin of Species'' was the advent of the [[pseudoscience]] known as [[geopolitics]].<ref>[https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/geopolitics-ill-suited-for-challenges-of-today-endangers-global-economy-by-robert-skidelsky-2023-06 The Costly Return of Geopolitics], Robert Skidelsky, Jun 19, 2023. www.project-syndicate.org</ref> <ref>[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Conservative%27s_essays&oldid=2072209#International_politics_and_geopolitics User:Conservative's essays#International politics and geopolitics], August 16, 2024.</ref>

One of the regrettable consequences of Charles Darwin’s ''On the Origin of Species'' was the advent of the [[pseudoscience]] known as [[geopolitics]].<ref>[https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/geopolitics-ill-suited-for-challenges-of-today-endangers-global-economy-by-robert-skidelsky-2023-06 The Costly Return of Geopolitics], Robert Skidelsky, Jun 19, 2023. www.project-syndicate.org</ref> <ref>[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Conservative%27s_essays&oldid=2072209#International_politics_and_geopolitics User:Conservative's essays#International politics and geopolitics], August 16, 2024.</ref>

===Recent clamour to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis===

===Modern evolutionary synthesis revision===

''See:'' [[Modern evolutionary synthesis]] and [[Theories of evolution]]

''See:'' [[Modern evolutionary synthesis]] and [[Theories of evolution]]

== Evolutionary Theory and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎ ==

== Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation on evolution‎ ==

[[Image:Haeckel.jpg|right|170px|thumb|[[Ernst Haeckel]]]]

[[Image:Haeckel.jpg|right|170px|thumb|[[Ernst Haeckel]]]]

:''See also: [[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎]]'' and [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Theories of evolution]] and [[Evolution and just so stories]]

:''See also: [[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎]]'' and [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Theories of evolution]] and [[Evolution and just so stories]]

Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: "I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically".<ref name="haeckel" />

Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: "I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically".<ref name="haeckel" />

== Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms ==

== Transitional Forms ==

''See also:'' [[Evolution and the fossil record]]

''See also:'' [[Evolution and the fossil record]]

== Microevolution vs. macroevolution ==

== Microevolution vs. macroevolution ==

 

In 2011, Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] declared:  

In 2011, Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] declared:  

{{cquote|It is a commonly held belief of evolutionists that small changes in genetic materials (mutations) will ultimately produce the presumed large changes necessary for one biological organism to change into a different kind of biological organism which is commonly called [[macroevolution]]. This belief is not valid. Scientifically, a mutation is a copying error of previously existing information contained in the DNA: a mutation is a structural change in the hereditary material which makes the offspring different from its parents.   

{{cquote|It is a commonly held belief of evolutionists that small changes in genetic materials (mutations) will ultimately produce the presumed large changes necessary for one biological organism to change into a different kind of biological organism which is commonly called [[macroevolution]]. This belief is not valid. Scientifically, a mutation is a copying error of previously existing information contained in the DNA: a mutation is a structural change in the hereditary material which makes the offspring different from its parents.   

 

It is acknowledged that the Laws of Genetics are conservative, they are not “creative.” Genetics only copies or rearranges the previously existing information and passes it on to the next generation. When copying information, you have only two choices; you can only copy it perfectly or imperfectly, you cannot copy something “more perfectly.” Mutations do not build one upon another beneficially. Mutations do not create new organs; they only modify existing organs and structures. Mutations overwhelmingly lose information; they do not gain it; therefore, mutations cause changes which are contrary of evolutionary philosophy.

It is acknowledged that the Laws of Genetics are conservative, they are not “creative.” Genetics only copies or rearranges the previously existing information and passes it on to the next generation. When copying information, you have only two choices; you can only copy it perfectly or imperfectly, you cannot copy something “more perfectly.” Mutations do not build one upon another beneficially. Mutations do not create new organs; they only modify existing organs and structures. Mutations overwhelmingly lose information; they do not gain it; therefore, mutations cause changes which are contrary of evolutionary philosophy.

{{cquote|...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution [[saltationism]] and its relative, [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibria]]) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of [[Phyletic gradualism|gradual evolution]] point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with ''both'': punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!<ref>[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-3-argument-evolution-is-true-science-not-just-a-theory Refuting evolution]</ref>}}

{{cquote|...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution [[saltationism]] and its relative, [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibria]]) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of [[Phyletic gradualism|gradual evolution]] point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with ''both'': punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!<ref>[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-3-argument-evolution-is-true-science-not-just-a-theory Refuting evolution]</ref>}}

== Implausible Explanations and the Evolutionary Position==

== Implausible Explanations ==

[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|200px|left|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]  

[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|200px|left|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]  

Individuals who are against the evolutionary position assert that evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible "just so stories" to support their position and have done this since at least the time of Charles Darwin.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/two-just-so-stories/</ref>

Individuals who are against the evolutionary position assert that evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible "just so stories" to support their position and have done this since at least the time of Charles Darwin.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/two-just-so-stories/</ref>

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244]<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>}}

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244]<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>}}

<br />

<br />

=== A significant portion of atheists see their lives and the world being the product of design ===

=== Atheists and views of design ===

Research and historical data indicate that a significant portion of atheists/agnostics often see their lives and the world as being the product of purposeful design (see: [[Atheism and purpose]]).<ref>

Research and historical data indicate that a significant portion of atheists/agnostics often see their lives and the world as being the product of purposeful design (see: [[Atheism and purpose]]).<ref>