Part Seven:  HOW DOES THE FOSSIL RECORD REFUTE  EVOLUTION?

 It’s one thing for Darwinists to argue that events that cannot be tested or replicated support naturalistic evolution (previous blog posts in this series); it’s quite another for them to deny empirical evidences for creation that can be examined today, such as the fossil record. The case for evolution depends primarily on the fossil record, which is the only potentially concrete evidence that can either prove or disprove naturalistic evolution.

Darwinists claim the fossil record reveals a gradual evolution of animal life from primitive forms to complex forms with transitional phases between major groups (fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds/mammals). If this is true, there should be many thousands of transitional specimens in the fossil record.

The fact is, there is virtually no support for evolution in the fossil record. There is no actual fossil evidence that shows primitive life forms evolved into complex life forms because no credible transitional fossils between any groups of animals have been found. Honest paleontologists admit this. The late Dr. Colin Patterson, former senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History and editor of its journal, was asked why he didn’t include photographs of transitional fossils in his book, Evolution. He replied, “If I knew of any, fossils or living, I would certainly have included them.” (Darwin’s Enigma; Fossils and Other Problems, 89.)

Charles Darwin knew there were no transitional fossils when he formulated his theory during the mid-nineteenth century. He merely assumed they existed. In chapter six of his book, The Origin of Species, Darwin wrote: “First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?” (The Origin of Species and the Descent of Man, 124)

Today, after many decades of accumulated fossil evidence, paleontologists still haven’t discovered any conclusive transitional fossils—not even any transitional parts, such as a half-scale/half-feather or half-leg/half-wing. Scholar and author, Nancy Pearcey, wrote about this:

Instead of filling in the gaps, new [fossil] findings have actually made the gaps more pronounced than ever. Why? Because the fossil forms tend to fall within existing groups, leaving clear gaps between groups—just as there are clear gaps between modern animals like horses and cows, dogs and cats. Put another way, variation tends to be limited to change within groups, instead of leading gradually from one group to another.  (Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity, 166.)

Pearcey’s comment, “variation tends to be limited to change within groups, instead of leading gradually from one group to another,” refers to one of the most important concepts defenders of divine creation need to understand: The difference between microevolution and macroevolution. This will be to topic of next week’s blog. ©

Note:  This series—and many of my previous apologetic blog posts during the past six-plus years – are fully developed in my newly released revised and expanded edition of Defending Your Faith (Kregel Publications, 2019). It can be ordered by clicking on “order books” above.