What, then, are we to make of the theory of evolution? The most serious flaw with the theory is its failure to account for organs that are "irreducibly complex", that is, so intricate and composed of so many interworking parts that they would be utterly useless were any part missing. One such organ is the eye. As a unit, it makes the world's most sophisticated camera seem like a Tinkertoy. But remove the optic nerve, or the cornea, or the retina, or any other of its dozens of component parts, and what remains is worthless. Such a structure could not have come about naturally, over millions of years, because natural selection works vigorously against the creation of useless appendages. (Natural selection is the process by which well-adapted individuals thrive at the expense of poorly-adapted individuals.) Said Charles Darwin, the founder of modern evolutionary thought, "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration,could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." ("The Origin of Species",Penguin edition, page 217) Other irreducibly complex structures include the ear, the digestive system, and the respiratory system.
More seriously, in the case of the sexual reproductive system, the organism doesn't even have unlimited generations to get it right. Either the organ systems are all in place from day one, or the organism leaves no offspring at all and cannot adapt. Not surprisingly, there are no known fossils of animals with partially-formed sexual reproductive systems.
The problem of irreducibly complex systems creates a corollary difficulty regarding the evolution of amphibians from fish. Fish use gills to breathe. Amphibians have gills as well, which they use while in water, but breathing on land requires an entirely different organ, the lung. The lung is so radically different from the gill as to preclude its having arisen from the gill, and it is too intricate to have arisen spontaneously. Consequently amphibians cannot have evolved from fish. Yet if life began in the ocean,as is claimed, there cannot have been any other evolutionary path for amphibians to follow. Amphibians must have been created.
Similarly, plants cannot have come about naturally. The leaf, by means of which plants make their own food, is another example of an irreducibly complex structure. The substructures that produce chlorophyll,those that absorb carbon dioxide from the air, those that receive water from the stem, etc. function perfectly when the leaf is intact; but remove any of those substructures and the leaf is useless. The leaf must therefore have arisen intact instantaneously.
Another difficulty is the fossil record. If an organism were to come about through evolution, we would expect to see in the fossil record a more or less continuous transition from the ancestor organism to the modern form; while rates of change might theoretically have varied from one era to the next, the overall process of evolution should be a continuous one(since an organism's young are always genetically similar to their parents).But the museums of natural history are totally devoid of any transition forms between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians,between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, or even between Australopithecus and modern man (Australopithecus is the supposed common ancestor of humans and apes). Attempts to explain the gaps in the fossil record in terms of the unlikelihood of any one fossil being preserved to the present day overlook the fact that, with the many fossils that have in fact been preserved, we should expect to see at least some intermediates. In the case of human evolution, some fossils have turned up which have been touted as intermediates. However, they can all be explained; I list a few below. (I am aware that creationist sources are taken with a large grain of salt by evolutionists, and not completely without justification, so I will quote from the book "Blueprints: Solving the Mystery of Evolution" [Penguin edition] by die-hard evolutionists Maitland Edey and Donald Johanson.)
Other supposed missing links have been put forward over the years, but all can be similarly explained. Some examples are Peking man (now knownto be fully human), Nebraska man (evidenced solely by a tooth now known to have come from an extinct race of pig), and Piltdown man (now known to have been a hoax). The fossil record is clear: man did not evolve from apes, Australopithecus, or anything else. Man, and all other species as well, were created spontaneously by G-d, and attempts to show otherwise will always fail. Archaeological evidence has always supported chapters 12 through 49 of Genesis, where the lives of the Patriarchs are discussed. Jews have also long been adept at keeping detailed genealogical records, lending credence to the "begats" portion of Genesis. Why should we have trouble accepting the rest of Genesis, where the creation of the world by a personal Creator who loves us is discussed?
An explanation of prophecies cited by Christians
13th-century rabbi says universe billions of years old! Return to Tal Zahav's Homepage