Darwin Archives

February 9, 2026March 11, 2026

Microevolution Does Not Confirm Macroevolution

Evolution, simply stated, is “change over time.” When we apply this to living organisms, we see two levels: microevolution and macroevolution. The difference between these can be simply stated. Microevolution involves changes below the species level, while macroevolution involves changes above the species level. For instance, transforming a sea creature into a land animal would be an example of macroevolution. Conversely, a bacterium developing resistance to antibiotics illustrates microevolution. The organism remains a bacterium. Microevolution does not confirm macroevolution.

We observe microevolution. Besides bacteria, we see human-directed evolution in dogs, cows, and roses. In each case, they are still dogs, cows, and roses, but with different traits. When Charles Darwin published On The Origin of Species in 1859, he speculated that if his theory was correct, the “number of intermediate varieties” of living things should show up in an “enormous” number of fossils. He acknowledged that, in his time, “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.” However, he predicted that over time, those missing-link fossils would be discovered.

Paleontologists, scientists who study fossils, were some of Darwin’s strongest critics at the time. How is the situation today? The bottom line is that the missing links are still missing. The Field Museum of Natural History has one of the largest fossil collections in the world. In 1979, paleontologist David Raup, in the museum’s bulletin, stated, “We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much” since Darwin’s time. Famed paleontologist Niles Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural History wrote in 1985, “We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the Darwinian theory of gradual change), knowing all the while it does not.”

Now, more than 165 years after Darwin, the missing links are still missing, while the average person believes the fossil record proves Darwinian evolution because that is what we have been told. Microevolution does not confirm macroevolution, nor does the fossil record.

References: “Conflicts Between Darwin and Palaeontology,” Field Museum of Natural History bulletin, January 1979, p. 25; Time Frames: The Evolution of Punctuated Equilibria, Princeton University Press, 1985, pp. 144-45, and God’s Undertaker by John C. Lennox, Lion Hudson, 2009, pp. 113-14.

July 23, 2025July 22, 2025

Bryan’s Arguments Against Darwin

Yesterday, July 21, 2025, marked the 100^th anniversary of the end of the famous Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee. Over the past few days, the media have commemorated it, and we have written about it HERE and HERE. The play “Inherit the Wind,” loosely based on the Scopes trial, was adapted into a movie twice, with the names changed to protect the innocent, or guilty. The real name was William Jennings Bryan, and although Bryan’s arguments against Darwin were not presented in the play or movies, they have still not been answered in the 100 years since Scopes.

William Jennings Bryan was a renowned orator of his day and a devout Christian who was not convinced of the truth of naturalistic macroevolution. One of his arguments against it involved the origin of life. Evolution does not explain creation. Evolution requires creation, and Darwin merely suggested that life got started in a “warm little pond” without explaining how that might have happened. Bryan said this:

“Those who reject the idea of creation are divided into two schools, some believing that the first germ of life came from another planet, and others holding that it was the result of spontaneous generation. Each school answers the arguments advanced by the other, and as they cannot agree with each other, I am not compelled to agree with either.”

After 100 years of research, scientists are no closer to solving the mystery of the origin of life than they were in Bryan’s day.

Another area that Bryan challenged was genetics (the passing of traits through generations) and morphology (the shape and structure of living things). Bryan expressed his doubts with a watermelon illustration:

“I was eating a piece of watermelon some months ago and was struck with its beauty…One [seed], put into the ground, when warmed by the sun and moistened by the rain, takes off its coat and goes to work; it gathers from somewhere two hundred thousand times its own weight, and forcing this raw material through a tiny stem, constructs a watermelon. It ornaments the outside with a covering of green; inside the green it puts a layer of white, and within the white a core of red, and all through the red it scatters seeds, each one capable of continuing the work of reproduction. Where does that little seed get its tremendous power? Where does it find its coloring matter? How does it collect its flavouring extract? How does it build a watermelon? Until you can explain a watermelon, do not be too sure that you can set limits to the power of the Almighty and say just what He would do or how He would do it. I cannot explain the watermelon, but I eat it and enjoy it.”

Today, we know that DNA carries the code for proteins and regulates cell functions, but science still does not understand the body plan of living things. What was once called “junk DNA” (non-coding) appears to be involved in morphology, but its mechanism of action remains unknown. Consider the similarities between the DNA of humans and fruit flies, and notice the vast differences in their body plans.

William Jennings Bryan’s arguments against Darwin have still not been answered by science. The origin of life and the secrets of genetics and morphology are still unexplained. Tomorrow, we will look at two more of Bryan’s arguments against Darwin.

Reference: “Still Unrefuted: William Jennings Bryan’s Key Arguments Against Darwinian Theory” by Rick Townsend in the summer 2025 issue of Salvo magazine, Pages 28-32.

July 14, 2025July 11, 2025

Darwin’s Mistake According to Psychologists

In 1871, Charles Darwin proposed that the difference between human and nonhuman minds was a matter of degree, not kind. A 2008 publication by Cambridge University Press calls that “Darwin’s mistake.”

Animals with very different brains, and sometimes no brain at all, can perform the essential functions needed to live and survive. God has created various animal orders with what they need to fulfill their roles in the system of life. This explains the different sizes and capabilities of brains among animals. However, the mind is something more than just the brain.

According to the team of psychologists who authored the report, only humans possess a mind capable of “the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system.” In this peer-reviewed journal, they wrote, “We show that this symbolic-relational discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture alone can explain.” In other words, a vast gulf exists between the human mind and the brain power of any animal.

Darwin’s mistake, according to this Cambridge University article, was suggesting that all differences between humans and nonhumans are a matter of degree, not of kind. This theory is disproved by the fact that only humans can develop abstract thinking and writing because humans alone can invent and use symbols in communication.

When God created humans in His image, He gave us a mind capable of great achievements. Unfortunately, that ability can also be used for great evil. He gave us a spiritual nature with a desire to know Him. Yet, our pride can lead us to reject God and serve only ourselves. We humans are the only creatures who can choose to fulfill God’s purpose for us or to rebel against His will. Darwin’s mistake was to think the difference between humans and nonhumans was merely a matter of degree. It is truly a difference of kind.

Reference: “Darwin’s Mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds” at Cambridge.org

February 5, 2021February 4, 2021

Biological Barriers to Evolution

For all living things to evolve from a single common ancestor, an incredible number of beneficial changes must occur. The problem is that biological barriers to evolution get in the way.

Although Darwinism looks for genetic mutations to fashion new and beneficial genetic changes, the vast majority of mutations are harmful. Since fruit flies have a short reproductive cycle, scientists have worked with enormous numbers of fruit fly generations, trying to demonstrate evolution. They have produced mutated fruit flies with four wings rather than two. However, the extra wings are a useless encumbrance to the fruit flies because there are no muscles to move them. Additionally, they are still fruit flies, not even houseflies or horseflies.

Darwin saw that the beaks of finches changed over time. However, those beak variations were not anything new; they had always been there. Changes in the habitat caused the birds with beneficial beak sizes and shapes to reproduce in larger numbers. When the climate or other conditions changed again, the predominant beaks changed again. The beak adaptations were not permanent changes, and the birds were still finches.

Mutations do not add new data to the DNA, and for a mutation to be passed on to the next generation, it must occur in the reproductive cells. A genetic change in body cells can’t be passed on to future generations any more than a woman who has had an appendectomy will give birth to a child with no appendix. Mutations in bacteria are well known and can cause them to become immune to the effects of antibiotics. But again, those are just hereditary fluctuations around a median point. They do not become new creatures.

Hundreds or even thousands of years of plant and animal breeding by humans has shown that intelligent breeding can produce remarkable changes and improvements. But new dog breeds are still dogs, and new rose varieties are still roses. If biological barriers to evolution limit intelligent humans to making improved changes within certain limited boundaries, could purely random chance mutations create the wide variety of life-forms in the world today? Billions of years are not enough time to do the impossible.

June 24, 2020June 23, 2020

Fossil Nicknamed Little Foot

The subject of human evolution is an area that continues to change with new techniques and new data, such as the study of a fossil nicknamed Little Foot. This area is of interest to those of us involved in apologetics – the study of evidence for the existence of God. The biblical concept of human creation is that we are created in the “image of God.” That message is clearly not referring to our physical makeup or how we look. God is a spirit (John 4:24), and it is our spiritual makeup, which is in God’s image.

The origin of the races of humans is interesting historically, but especially now with the “black lives matter” movement. Evolutionists at the time of Darwin claimed that black people were early prototypes of humans, but were not fully human and therefore could be treated like animals. For many people, that belief, as absurd as it is, was the justification for slavery. As far as apologetics is concerned, the uniqueness of all humans is rooted in human spiritual abilities. Those include the capacity to worship, the ability to create music and art, the ability to feel spiritual emotions, and our concept of self-awareness.

The assumption that humans evolved from some ancient ape-like animal has been fraught with difficulties and controversy. A skeleton of Australopithecus prometheus found at Sterkfontein in South Africa has added to the discussion. The fossil nicknamed Little Foot has a well-preserved atlas vertebra that sits just beneath the cranium at the top of the spinal column. By studying this vertebra, scientists can determine the flow of blood to the brain.

Little Foot’s blood flow was significantly lower than the flow into human brains, which means that Little Foot’s brain was severely restricted. Scientists classify it as Australopithecus, which refers to a group of apes and monkeys. New data adds to the evidence that science needs to clarify the physical models of change in monkeys, apes, and, most importantly, in humans.

Any attempt to use science to denigrate a race of humans as inferior is unsupported by the evidence. We see human uniqueness in the truth of the simple biblical statement, “God that made the world and all things within it … has made of one blood all nations of men to dwell upon the earth…” (Acts 17:24 and 26).

Data from Archaeology magazine

April 1, 2019March 31, 2019

Evolution Is Not a Dirty Word

Please read this before you write an angry letter. We publish a printed journal which we mail to those who requests it. In our first quarter edition, we had an article titled “Branded.” One of the points we made in that article is that evolution is not a dirty word.

In the article, we pointed out that one of the things turn people away from the Church is labeling people based on misinformation. We cited some examples such as racial prejudice. That is an area that I had to deal with when I was a child, and the Ku Klux Klan threatened our home and especially my father.

A current example of labeling or branding I have experienced involves the use of the term “evolution.” Those of us who believe in science experience animosity from some Christians who view science as an alternative to belief in God. The whole foundation of this ministry is that science supports the Bible and faith in God. We regularly get hate mail from people who claim to be Christians and accuse us of replacing God with science. That is just the opposite of what we are doing. First Peter 3:15 tells us to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks us of the reason for the hope that is in us.” Passages like Romans 1:18-21, Proverbs 8, Psalms 139:6-16, and Psalms 19:1-3 all tell us to observe God’s incredible wisdom and creative capacity by studying the world around us.

In the article titled “Branded” we had headings titled “Science Is Not a Not Dirty Word” and “Evolution Is Not a Dirty Word.” To make sure there were no misunderstandings, we explained what evolution means. When I say “I believe in evolution” I am not talking about a particular theory of evolution, I am talking about the fact of evolution. The fact of evolution refers to an unfolding change over time.

F. LaGard Smith in his wonderful criticism of Darwin’s theory of evolution titled Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem uses small e and capital E to separate the theory from the fact. (See our review of Smith’s book in our third quarter 2018 journal.) The 142 varieties of chickens that exist today were produced by unfolding change (evolution). That is a fact. It is a fact that there were no cockapoos, peekapoos, Charolais cattle, or Nancy Reagan roses on Noah’s Ark. It is a fact that Jacob by evolution took Laban’s flocks and secured his own superior flocks. (See Genesis 30:31-43.) When young people take a biology class, they learn about how agriculture uses this kind of change which is called “evolution.” To put this at odds with the belief that the Bible is the Word of God is a tragic mistake.

We explained that in the article, but we have had some hate mail from people who saw “Evolution is not a dirty word” as a heading and apparently didn’t read the article. Instead, they sent off an angry letter announcing that I was an evolutionist and an enemy of Christ. What they did, was to show how truthful our article was. This kind of attitude has been going on for a very long time with books written and articles printed branding me and this ministry rather than recognizing that the mean-spirited attitude displayed in their writing is more of an issue than any theory of evolution.

You can read the original article online by clicking HERE, and see for yourself that evolution is not a dirty word. (Neither is science.)

July 3, 2018June 28, 2018

Why Two Genders?

Why Two Genders?
The simplest one-cell life forms can reproduce by dividing, but advanced life requires both a male and a female to procreate. We wonder why two genders are needed. How can naturalistic evolution explain sexual reproduction?

Science has discovered that sexual reproduction is much more complicated than we ever would have expected. Various plants and animals use different processes involving two genders to reproduce. The processes involved vary dramaticly between species. Would it not have been simpler for evolution to result in creatures with the ability to conceive a new life within themselves and give birth to that life without the need for another of the same species?

Think of how much more complicated the evolution of a new species would be if two genders had to evolve at the same time. If a male of a new species evolved with no female, that new species would become extinct when the male died. You must have two genders of the new species at the same moment in time with the same genes and the corresponding reproductive organs. Otherwise, reproduction would not be possible.

Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” God created humans in His image spiritually, but He gave them a physical morphology complimentary to each other. He made the man first and then showed him all of the animals. (Genesis 2:19, 20). Surely Adam noticed that there were males and females in the animal world. As a result, Adam would have realized that something was missing from his life. He needed someone like himself, but different.

After the sex education lesson, God took some of Adam’s physical body to create his complimentary half. Adam’s reaction, “(At long last) this is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.” This was God’s design for love and reproduction. Why two genders? God intended for us to have two genders to complete each other. It didn’t happen by accident. It couldn’t have.
–Roland Earnst © 2018
F. LaGard Smith has written an excellent book which goes into great detail on this topic. The title is Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem and we highly recommend it.

February 9, 2018September 13, 2018

Evolution Weekend and Darwin Day 2018

Evolution Weekend and Darwin Day 2018
February 12 has been designated as Darwin Day by the U.S. government with Senate Resolution 374 and House Resolution 699 both being pushed by the American Humanist Association. The stated goal is “..support of designating February 12, 2018, as Darwin Day and recognition of Charles Darwin as a worthy symbol of scientific advancement on which to focus and around which to build a global celebration of science and humanity intended to promote a common bond among all of Earth’s people.” With Darwin Day comes the return of Evolution Weekend in which various churches use the weekend of February 9-11 to promote their view that “evolution is sound science and poses no problems for their faith.” The Clergy Letter which Michael Zimmerman circulates among denominational congregations states that “Evolution Weekend makes it clear that those claiming that people must choose between religion and science are creating a false dichotomy.”

All of this is a strange mix of good ideas and bad ideas along with fact and opinion. It is also replete with attacks on the Bible and denigration of those who claim that bad science is involved. The stated goals are wonderful. The failure to define what is meant by evolution and accurately present what Charles Darwin actually discovered dilutes the value of the weekend and of Darwin Day itself.

It would be wonderful if Darwin Day not only commemorated the birth of Charles Darwin but presented his primary discovery. What Darwin discovered was that living things are designed so that they can change and adapt to environmental conditions and changes humans make to improve crops and animal husbandry. Unfortunately, atheists attempt to add the writings of those who oppose the idea that humans are special. Instead, they suggest that all of life has equal value because they deny the spiritual dimension of humans.

It would also be wonderful if, on evolution weekend, religious bodies would present to their constituents the evidence that claimed conflicts between science and the Bible do not exist. The conflicts are caused by bad science or bad theology–not because of what the Bible actually says or what science has factually proven to be true.

Unfortunately many members of the clergy, such as the “Jesus Seminar,” join the atheists in denigrating the Bible by suggesting that it is full of errors. The National Center for Science Education reports that 182 congregations in 42 states are participating in Evolution Weekend. That is a very small percentage of American churches.
–John N. Clayton © 2018

October 23, 2017November 8, 2018

Origin of Life Complexity

The origin of life complexity continues to baffle science. There are two competing scientific theories on the origin of life. One is called the “Darwin school of thought” which posits that meteorites brought elements to Earth that led to the formation of compounds which led to RNA and then to DNA. The second theory says that life originated in mineral-rich hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor.

The problem with both of these theories is that they are not explaining the origin of life complexity. They are only explaining some of the compounds that would be necessary to form life. Many scientists question the possibility of either of these theories and whether organic compounds could survive in the conditions of the early Earth. The bigger issue is how you could move from those compounds–no matter how they were formed–to a living cell.

You not only must have the ingredients to make life, but you also need a protected environment in which those compounds can be combined. Life could not begin in a toxic atmosphere or if there were agents on Earth’s surface that would destroy the ingredients. RNA and DNA involve long strands of nucleotides. Scientists in the laboratory can only produce such chains in a carefully controlled environment. The time element involved in producing increasingly complex molecules is also an issue.

When we enter probabilities into this process, the odds of each step happening by chance are very unlikely. Then to put all the steps together in the right order makes the probability of it happening by chance outside the scientific limits of what is possible.

Research into the origin of life complexity strongly points to an intelligent Creator. The more we learn, the more complexity we see. The famous atheist Antony Flew saw the complexity of a living cell, and that was a major factor in his coming to believe in God. His statement of faith was, “You have to go where the evidence leads.” Certainly, this area of study gives evidence of God’s wisdom and creative design. References: The Week, October 20, 2017, page 19, and Newsweek.com.
–John N. Clayton © 2017

September 27, 2017October 5, 2018

Turkish Government Will Remove Evolution

Turkish education minister Ismet Yilmaz has announced changes to the textbooks in that country. Starting next fall, the Turkish government will remove evolution and all references to Charles Darwin from the textbooks along with 170 other topics that do not coincide with the Islamic government views. The new curriculum to replace these topics is said to be “value-based” and in harmony with student development.

The current biology course for twelveth grade biology has a section titled “The Beginning of Life and Evolution.” It is being replaced with a unit titled “Living Beings and the Environment.” This new course will include discussions of adaptation, mutation, and natural and artificial selection without mentioning evolution or Darwin. An earlier section for an eleventh-grade philosophy class will be titled “Evolution and other Ontological Opinions.”

The situation is complicated in Turkey not only because of the influence of Islam but also because of the failed coup in 2016. The government is using the schools as a way to control the population. Included in the new curriculum are units about the groups that the government is fighting such as the Kurdistan Worker’s Party and the U.S.-based Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen.

American creationist groups that want to include their particular view of biology in education may want to look at what is happening in Turkey. The new curriculum, which is religiously based, is turning the classroom into a political football. It will be interesting to see if the Turkish government will remove evolution from the educational system without causing major civil unrest.

We have pointed out that modern agriculture, animal husbandry, aquaculture, and fish management depend upon the basic concepts that Darwin presented. The fact that animals can change and that this change can be used to benefit the world is important for young people to learn. The enemy is naturalism in which these concepts are expanded to exclude God’s role.
–John N. Clayton © 2017

Reference: Detroit News 9/18/17, page 5A, AP release by Zeynep Bilginsoy.