critique of the theory of evolution

      Copyright © 2007 Walter Friedman. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf & Stock, 199 W. 8th Ave., Eugene, OR 97401.

      ISBN 13: 978-1-55635-175-4

      EISBN 13: 978-1-4982-7608-5

      Manufactured in the U.S.A.

      To those who believe that Darwin was a quack.

      Preface

      Every book has its purpose, at least the author hopes so. The purpose of this book is to show that the theory of evolution is scientifically incorrect. This book is not a book on metaphysics or religion.

      Chapters devoted to criticism of the evolutionary theory do not contain the words God, Intelligent Design, Messiah, etc.; one of the purposes of this book is to provide a scientific evaluation of the evolutionary theory without offering any alternative. However, these words do appear in Part III in discussions of legal matters.

      What makes this book different from all the other books in this category? Before answering this question, let’s take a look at the other books in the field. In general, they could be divided into two major categories:

      1) Books critical of the evolutionary theory written by theologians

      The authors of these books assume that the Bible is correct. Though they may be right, this is a matter of faith and not of scientific truth, so their books completely miss the target.

      2) Books critical of the evolutionary theory written by proponents of Intelligent Design.

      Their brand of criticism could be summed up in the following sentence: modern life-forms are too complex to be thought to evolve from a single source known as the Original Cell.

      But the phrase “too complex” lacks precise scientific meaning; therefore, this form of criticism is far off the target.

      These two categories have one thing in common—their critics of Darwinism assume that it is imperative to replace the evolutionary theory with some other theory, be that a biblical account of the creation or an account of God as the Intelligent Designer. In reality, replacing the evolutionary theory with another alternative is an unnecessary requirement. As the history of science shows, the vast majority of erroneous scientific theories fell not because they were replaced with new, more sophisticated theories but because they contained either contradictory statements or statements that led to ridiculous conclusions, or both. Still, many people believe, for a variety of reasons, that a valid criticism of a scientific theory should offer an alternative theory that explains the same phenomena. But anyone familiar with the history of science knows that this is not always true. In fact, many theories, such as those of astrology and dialectical materialism, the concept of ether, the theory of transmutation of elements (this one comes from alchemy), etc., were thrown out without replacement—they were so ridiculous that no replacement was necessary.

      The purpose of this book is not to replace the theory of evolution with some other theory or theological system, but rather to show that the weakness of the evolutionary theory’s arguments disqualifies it from being called a scientific theory at all.

      If I decide to write another book as a continuation of this one I will definitely offer an alternative, but for the time being this is not my intention.

      section i

      1 : Pseudo-Scientific Methodology

      Every natural science uses its own methodology to derive conclusions; experimental data either proves that the conclusions are correct or disproves them. Physics and mathematics have, arguably, the most advanced and fruitful methodologies that have withstood the test of time (although mathematics is not a natural science, its methodology meets all the criteria of scientific methodology). Before discussing the methodology that biologists use, it would be beneficial to take a brief look at the methodology commonly used by physicists and chemists.

      The science of physics begins with the set of propositions called postulates, or laws of Nature. Examples of postulates include Newton’s laws of motion and Maxwell’s equations of electrodynamics. While postulates themselves are not subjected to experimental verification, certain mathematical manipulations are used to derive conclusions from the postulates. These conclusions are then compared to experimental data. If the conclusions are in agreement with the experimental data then the postulates are correct. For example, you can use Newton’s laws of motion to predict the motion of your car, or the motion of an airplane, or the motion of the Earth around the Sun.

      Mathematicians use a similar approach; however, instead of postulates they rely upon what are called axioms.

      Biologists take an entirely different approach—they do not have postulates or axioms because they do not need them. Unlike chemistry or physics, which are predictive sciences, biology is a descriptive science. In other words, biology does not make predictions but rather classifies animate objects into categories or classes. Some examples of classes are as follows: mammals, birds, and reptiles. Mammals, for example, could be classified further into subclasses such as feline, bovine, and ape. Species that belong to the same subclass possess certain similarities—in physical appearance, hunting habits, mating habits, and the like. Biological classifications are very advantageous because they allow compact descriptions of huge numbers of species.

      So far so good. But proponents of the theory of evolution went much further by suggesting that common characteristics indicate that members of a subclass have common ancestors down the evolutionary line—ancestors that are now deemed to be extinct. This is the so-called concept of macroevolution that forms one of the stepping stones of the evolutionary theory.

      Could this same methodology that was used to arrive at the concept macroevolution be applied in other branches of science? Let us try to use such a methodology in chemistry and see what happens.

      As the periodic table of elements demonstrates, there are several groups of elements with similar characteristics; examples of such groups include the lanthanide series, the actinide series, and inert gases. If the macroevolution methodology is applied to the groups of elements of the Periodic Table, one inevitably comes to the conclusion that the elements of a group were branched out of the same element as the result of unknown chemical reactions. This “primal element” was completely used up in the series of reactions, so cannot, therefore, be found in the native state any longer. Of course, any chemist would say that this is nonsense. The concept of “primal elements” is completely unscientific. But evolutionists use this faulty methodology to support the concept of macroevolution.

      Though some evolutionists saw the weakness of the original concept of macroevolution, they decided to strengthen it by saying that there is no alternative explanation of the fact that certain species have very close characteristics, such as nearly identical genetic structure. This, however, is not correct. There are at least two alternative explanations: 1) Proponents of the hypothesis of alien intervention believe that the Earth’s species were created by extraterrestrial civilization millions of years ago. One might argue that extraterrestrial scientists liked similarities so much that they couldn’t resist the urge to create animals that look and behave alike. 2) A very small number of scientists believe that the universe, and the planet Earth in particular, always existed (this theory originated within Hinduism and was somehow taken up in the sciences). If this theory is correct, scientists would never know why there are unexplainable similarities in animal species.

      The concept of macroevolution is based on a faulty logical principle according to which the resemblances among objects indicate a common origin. Centuries ago this principle was deemed to