Is Evolution Scientific?

Tom Bunting
Sault Ste. Marie, Canada

When someone speaks up against the theory of evolution they are immediately cast aside as an unscientific ignoramus. Is it true that to reject this theory one must be both ignorant and unscientific? Are only the intelligent people on the side of evolution? Is the theory of evolution really scientific?

We are told by evolutionists that to gain an understanding of what the theory of organic evolution is and what it implies we must distinguish between this theory, which deals with the 'fact' of evolution, and those theories which deal with the cause of evolution. We are warned by evolutionists not to confuse "Darwinism" and the theory of evolution. They are not supposed to be "the same at all. Yet, our intelligence is impugned if we reject Darwinism. To be sure that we approach the problem from the viewpoint of the evolutionist we are admonished to know that the theory of natural selection (Darwinism) is simply one attempt to explain the cause of evolution. There are some things, they say, with which the theory of evolution is not concerned. It is not concerned with the origin of life; neither does it presume to tell us what form or forms life first appeared on earth. This theory does not deny the existence of a Creator. So they say! Then go right ahead and print pictures in science books of some evolutionists impression of the origin of life along with pictures of forms of life which they believe first appeared on earth. They say that this theory does not deny the existence of a Creator and then turn right around and cast doubt on the story of creation. Why bother if they're not concerned with the "origin of life" ? What they say and what they do are obviously quite different! Maybe Parker and Clark don't presume to tell us what form or forms life first appeared but many evolutionists do.

Organic evolution is defined by John M. Coulter: "The study of organic evolution deals only with the succession of forms, with the production of new forms by previously existing ones. It has nothing to say concerning origins. How the numerous series of living forms may have originated is certainly beyond the reach of biological science as yet. When one goes beyond the observed changes and tries to trace the successions back to their source, he is in the region of speculation, and outside the boundaries of science." (Heredity and Eugenics, Castel, Coulter, Davenport, East and Tower; p. 8.) In this definition much depends upon how they use this word "forms." Do they have reference to the color? By succession of forms do they mean from black, to brown, to reddish brown, to red, to Yellow, to white as it is controlled by the laws of genetics? If that is organic evolution, I know of no one that objects! However, I hardly think that is what they had in mind. If they had in mind the succession from one phylum to another, then objection can be made on all sides. The trouble, with the evolutionist today is as Coulter stated, "going beyond the observed changes . . . and they are in the region of speculation, outside. the boundaries of science.

God created every "kind" of being, If we study only the observed changes and stay out of the region of speculation then science will strengthen this fact. Man has classified the animals into genus, species, phylum, etc. God classified them as "kind." When we observe that there is a change in species (and there are minute number) then it is evident that these are of the same "kind." The few number of changes in species and none in phylum is evidence of the law of procreation established by the Creator in the very beginning. Everyone bringeth forth after its kind IS still a fact of science, in spite of the theory of evolution!

Comparative Anatomy

Parker and Clark list the following as salient facts concerning evolution. "All vertebrates from fish to man have an internal, dorsal, spinal column composcd of a number of bony vertebrae joined to a bony skull which, together with the vertegral column, houses the central nervous system." (Introduction to Animal Biology, p. 486.) Now isn't that something; man and fish both have a back bone so we have the same ancestors! If that is scientific reasoning . . . Oh, well! Have you ever heard such powerful logic? just as good (I think even better); fish live in water and man can't, therefore we do not have a common ancestor! Surely the similarity is not the best evolutionists have to offer?

Another argument of the evolutionist is that the common ancestor idea is shown by the presence of vestigial organs. A vestigial organ is supposed to be one that is retained in the organism from past ancestors but now has degenerated to the point it is of no use. I wonder how they determine if that particular organ is going up or down the evolutionary ladder? Well, anyway, they say it is degenerating! If there are vestigial organs then it is logical to assume that there would also be nascent organs if the theory of evolution be true. Nascent organs are not mentioned in a gathering of evolutionists for the simple reason that the lack of nascent structures and organs is evidence against evolution and in favor of special creation. Every year the list of vestigial organs is decreasing as uses are found for those once supposed to be vestigial organs. Is it possible that those which remain today have a use which science has not yet discovered? I wonder if those teaching so strongly about vestigial organs realize that just because an organ is not being used, or we do not know the use, does not necessarily mean that it has no use.


In this field of study there is a controversy around the "biogenetic law" also known as the "recapitulation theory." This theory is that each individual animal in its development from egg to adult form passes through stages representative of the evolution of the species. That there is some resemblance we do not deny. But this resemblance is not between the embryo of one species to the adult of another, rather it is a resemblance of both at the embryo level. This I suppose could be expected since both start from a fertilized egg and have considerable likeness also at the end of their development.

Many suppose, as did Haeckel that the embryo goes through all the stages of its evolutionary development. However, many supposed stages came too early, others too late, some not at all. An example of this is the development of the teeth and tongue of the mammals.

"It was expected," writes Keith, "That the embryo would recapitulate the features of all its ancestors from the lowest to the highest forms of the animal kingdom. Now that the appearances of the embryo at all ages are known . . . the human embryo at no stage is anthropoid in appearance." (The Human Body, 1912, p. 94); quoted in Is Evolution Proved, p. 270). Keith, an evolutionist, admits disappointment because the ernbryo does not recapitulate the stages of supposed ancestral development. Contrary to evolutionists, embryology is one of the reasons we reject the theory of evolution and we commend the study of embryology to all.

In this theory of recapitulation they select the organs that claim to have some resemblance between the embryo and adults of another species; while the organs that show no resemblance are ignored. Is that scientific to select only the data that fits one's preconceived theory? Science is supposed to weigh all the evidence impartially. For this reason we say that evolutionists are unscientific, they completely ignore all the evidence against their theory.

The arches and furrows in the neck of the human embryo are supposed to resemble the gill and clefts of a fish. "However, the arch develops into the lower jaw (which it does not do in the fish), second forms the middle and outer ear (which the fish does not have). None of them form gills." (Modern Science and Christian Faith, p. 94.)

One of my professors in a state college was insisting that evolution was implied in the theory of recapitulation. I wonder if it ever occured to such people that just because the embryos of two or more vertebrates look alike does not mean that they are alike, nor that they have had a common ancestor. The truth of the matter is that the science of embryology lays a death blow to one of the chief arguments of evolution! Even though the embryo of the chick, rabbit, and man look alike; the embryo of the chick will develop into a chicken every time! The embryo of the rabbit will be a rabbit every time. The embryo of the man will be a man every time. Each one after its "kind." This law of procreation will not vary now, nor has it ever changed. This is a recognized scientific fact that the evolutionist will not, nor dare not, deny! Like all scientific facts which are contrary to the theory of evolution they simply ignore it. This is further proof that the theory is not scientific for they are afraid to study both sides of the controversy. The first time the evolutionist takes the egg of a chicken and under nine months incubation develops a man, I will concede they have some evidence to support their theory. Or if they can take the embryo of man and in 21 days stop the process and have a chicken, I will agree they have some evidence. However, as long as the embryo of a chick continues to develop into a chicken; a rabbit to a rabbit; and a man to a man; the scientific evidence is all against the "theory of recapitulation" and evolution. Science in no way denies special creation, in fact it renders a great service in proving the Bible to be true. If the theory of recapitulation is the best that evolution has to offer, then they have nothing but their own imaginative prejudiced mind.


Like all other phases of science the fossil evidence has been so manipulated by evolutionists that a great majority of the writings do not give an unbiased account of the facts. Those fossils that may tend to lend some support to their presupposed theory are emphasized while the unfavorable fossils are completelv ignored. They ignore the Calaveras skull found in 1866, and the skeletal remains of a comparative modern type in Castenedolo. Italy. There are several fossils of a modern type of an earlier date than Pithecanthropus and Sanarithropus, but these are largely ignored. These have to be ignored for if not, they would destroy the evidence based upon the 'Java man' and the Sinanthropus from China. Evolutionists would like to pass these examples aside with a wave of the hand. "What difference does it make," they would say. Simply this, when you recognize that the Galley Hill man was to have for his ancestors, according to evolution, the Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus but he makes his appearance several thousand years ahead of them it presents a most difficult and embarrassing problem for those who hold to the theory of evolution. It is the responsibilitv of the evolutionist to show that the Galley Hill man was not contemporary with the strata in which he was found. But instead they simply ignore such examples, and thereby testify to all that evolution is only a preconceived idea originating in the mind of some.

We often hear something about a "missing link" as if there was only one, but the fact is there's the absence of the whole chain! Even one of their links which they have had for years was found to be a forgery! (The Piltdown Forgery published in England). And so goes evolution! With each passing year there seems to be another "missing link" missing. With the growing advancement of scientific knowledge we expect them in the near future to throw awav the whole broken chain, as the theory of evolution was based solely on prejudices of the mind.

Why the Popularity of Such a Theory?

"If the theory of evolution is so unscientific," someone says, "then why the popularity of such a theory?" Did you know that if a teacher of science should make known publicly that he did not accept the theory of evolution he would be anathematized. It has been completely out of fashion for one to deny this preposterous theory. In recent years it would have been plain suicide for an American or British biologist to declare himself a believer in special creation or deny the theory of evolution. We are glad to say that this tendency seems to be slowly changing. However, there is still room for improvement. The B.B.C. would not allow any of its speakers to attack this theory. The school text books treat it as if it were already proven. Is it any wonder that biologists that have doubted the theory of evolution have up to now, kept their doubts to themselves. Lunn says, "in view of the growing scepticism among scientists it seems to me that it is a crime against science to allow evolution to be represented in most schools as a proved and demonstrated fact." (Lunn, Editory, Is Evolution Proved" p. 333). We hope that with the increased emphasis on studies in the field of science we will see, a renewed vigor and enthusiasm, and a complete unbiased analyses of the theory of evolution. We have no doubt but that an unprejudiced investigation will reveal the long overlooked and ignored fallacies of the thoory of evolution.

Truth Magazine IV:5, pp. 22-24
February 1960