Case-Making 101: God vs. Science Part 2, The Negative Evidence for Darwinian Evolution

“Naturalistic biologists assert that life generated spontaneously from nonliving chemicals by natural laws without any intelligent intervention. But today this naturalistic theory flies in the face of everything we know about natural laws and biological systems.”  –Frank Turek and Norman L. Geisler, “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist”


The more I investigate evolutionary theory as it relates to the origin of life the more questions I continue to have. Logic, the actual evidence, and plain common sense does not allow for the conclusions drawn by most evolutionary scientists. Why are so many brilliant scientists married to this theory? Why do they refuse to even consider the evidence of design seen outside in nature and inside the human body?

I believe there is a deeper reason why most evolutionists don’t want to look anywhere else, but that is for another post. As Christians we are called to share and defend truth, especially as it relates to the Gospel.

What evidence is there against Darwinian Evolution?

Last week we identified the mistake that is often made in terminology between microevolution and macroevolution and how most people understand evolution as an umbrella term for origin of life. However, there is absolutely no evidence of transition from the observable microevolution to the unobservable macroevolution of species. It is a theory touted as fact but in reality it is a philosophical presupposition.

Phillip Johnson, U.C. Berkley Law Professor and Author of “Darwin on Trail” (click link to check out the book) has said, “Darwinism is based on an ‘a priori [prior] commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses.” 

Evolutionary Biologist and Harvard Professor Richard Lewontin admits, “We take the side of science in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises…because we have a prior commitment to materialism…Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.”

When I read Molecular Biologist Dr. Jonathan Wells’ Icons of Evolution (click the link for information on the book/DVD) I was astonished. I felt cheated. If Wells and other reputable scientist have shown that there is deception in the textbooks and evidence that contradicts evolution why are we as public school science teachers not allowed to use it?

What are icons of evolution?

Icons of evolution are the visual representations that we see everywhere that symbolizes evolution and that most people assume are true. Let’s look at just a few of these false icons that are embedded in our public school curriculums:

  • Haeckel’s embryos: Ernst Haeckel, in the late 1860’s, drew embryos of different animals and a human to demonstrate that all living things evolved from a common evolutionary ancestor. His drawings (not real pictures) showed almost identical embryos at their earliest stages—fish, salamander, turtle, chicken, rabbit and human. In reality Haeckel altered (faked) these drawings. The actual embryos of the earliest stages are significantly different, yet these drawings are still being used. Ardent evolutionists will defend this by saying that it is an easy way to describe how evolution works [what they believe to be true] even though the drawings are inaccurate.

Haekel's Embryos


  • Darwin’s Finches: Charles Darwin, from his one time trip to the Galapagos Islands, theorized that the changes he observed in the size and length of finch beaks were evidence of evolution. He never returned to the island for further study and today we know, depending on the climate, that some years the birds with longer beaks thrive and other years birds with shorter beaks do fine. The beaks fluctuate in size but there is no evidence of evolutionary change over time. Most importantly, there is no evidence of change from a finch to another kind of animal.

Darwin's finches 2


  • Antibiotic resistant bacteria: Evolutionists cite certain types of bacteria that become antibiotic resistant over time. Rapid change in these bacteria can be observed but even after the changes they are still bacteria. There is no evidence of change from bacteria to other kinds of organisms.


  • Fruit flies: Two winged fruit flies reproduce and die very quickly so when mutations occur, such as those that result in four winged flies, Evolutionists cite this as evidence for evolutionary transition. However, the four wings become a detriment to the fly and according to evolutions’ own premise of ‘survival of the fittest’ they will not thrive and soon die out. The four winged fly is also a human manipulation in a lab so it defeats itself in claiming a naturalistic method of evolution. Most importantly after observation of hundreds of generations there is still no transition to another kind of organism, they are still flies.


  • Homologous structures: Evolutionists will cite similarity in body plans (like bone structure in hands, paws, fins and wings) as evidence of common ancestry. Instead this can be seen as the best possible design for functionality and survivability. A common designer with a perfect body plan for all living things better answers the question of homology than evolutionary speculation that has no evidence in the fossil record. None of these have transitioned to another kind of organism.


  • The tree of life: This chart is found in almost every science classroom and it shows how life evolved from one common ancestor, a single cell in a primordial soup. From this cell it branches out like a tree into the different kinds of life we see today. If this is true then there should be abundant transitional forms found in the fossil record but the earliest fossils found to date show complete body plans that match what we see today. Where are the transitional forms?


  • The assent of man chart: This chart  shows a series of imposed pictures of primates representing human evolution from a knuckle-walking ancestor to modern man. William Huxley’s well-known version of this icon is in fact a copy of skeletons from a modern day Gibbon, Orangutan, Chimpanzee, Gorilla and then a man. These are not transitional forms but apes still with us today. The visual representations imply transition but again there is no evidence in the fossil record. Biochemist Dr. Fazale Rana, professor of Human Origins, regularly gives his students an assignment to go out and bring back fossil evidence of human evolution. Every student comes back empty handed because the physical evidence is non-existent. The things they find are, in reality, fossils of apes or humans, or humans with bone disease such as arthritis.

The few incomplete fossils that evolutionists tout as transitional, like ‘Lucy,’ are not available because they are behind lock and key, Why?

In fact, the few bones that make up Lucy have more chimp-like characteristics than human, and the couple of lower limb bones you see were found in another site and then put together.

Does this…

Lucy's bones

make this?

Lucy the primate

This is what an evolutionary artist says Lucy would look like as an early human. What do you think? Does money play a role in these so-called discoveries?

Next week we will focus on what is really going on in the fossil record and how evolutionists explain this evidence (or lack there of).

The Apostle Paul said… Similarly there are different kinds of flesh—one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.  –1 Corinthians 15:39



You will not find this material in the public school curriculum even though it is based on solid evidence and grounded in research. It is ironic that following the evidence to where it leads stops at the door of our public schools as they will not let a “Divine footprint” in!

Join us this year as we examine evidence for Christianity and learn how to become a thoughtful defender and ambassador of your faith.

Click into the resource page of this website to view many of the top Christian thinkers and apologists along with some of their work; connecting to these types of resources is essential in your Christian growth.

Please let me know what you think: Give feedback, ask questions or send concerns in the comment section of the blog.

Teri Dugan

2 Responses to Case-Making 101: God vs. Science Part 2, The Negative Evidence for Darwinian Evolution

  1. Go to the Natural History Museum in Washington DC and you can see Lucy, who is not under lock and key. You will also see a great deal more specimens of early humans, with transparent explanations of ‘How do we know that?’ which will clear up many of your errors.

    Your assumption that ‘Christians’ must reject evolution is offensive to the vast majority of Christians who have no problem at all with it. You would get on well with radical Islamists though.

    • Thank you for your comment Robert.

      It would be great if someone would answer the problems I posed in this post with evolutionary theory for origin of life as it is falsely taught. You have not done that. Lucy is one of a few, if not the only specimen evolutionist will tout, but you are not allowed to test or examine her. In fact, the one on display at the Natural History Museum is a replica because the Ethiopian Government has the supposed original. Based on research you will find that Lucy was put together by random incomplete bones found in several areas and far apart and then assumptions of what she would look like are filled in. There is no evidence that Lucy is a complete human and her structure, as presented, is more common to ape. Most of the so-called specimens presented in museums are either fully human or fully ape and there is no evidence of human transitional forms, yet we are told that they are. This is a “story” that evolutionists, from their worldview, have put together and they cannot answer some of the most basic questions presented by those who question the theory. See Douglas Axe’s new book: Undeniable or check out this article.

      My assumptions are based on questions and facts that I have researched and I encourage others to do the same. Christians are free to believe what they want, but I highly recommend knowing what you believe and why you believe it, and know that it is based on evidence you’ve checked out for yourself (from both sides). If a person claims to be a Christian yet believes that humans evolved then I don’t see how they can be followers of Jesus who, in Matthew Chapter 19, confirms the creation of humans and who, in fact, is the Word that created all that we see and are. The Bible, the book Christians should be studying, teaches that God created humans in His image and not through an evolutionary process, which if were true would delete the purpose for Jesus’ death and resurrection on our behalf.

      From my research I have found that there is more evidence for Creation by Intelligent Design then there is for evolution as means for the origin of complex life. Because of this evidence more and more scientists are bailing from the Darwin boat and looking more seriously at the theory of Intelligent Design-see my previous posts and recommended readings. The evidence points strongly to intelligence as the origin factor. Just look at the information code in DNA, the fine tuning of our universe and the Laws of Nature that scream Designer.

      Usually when people do not know what they are talking about they resort to making attack claims as you did in your last sentence. You apparently don’t know the foundational teachings of Christianity or Islam and your ignorance is obvious.

      See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. Colossians 2:8