Darwin’s Difficulties

May I ask you to think today?

Some have accused those of us of Christian faith sometimes of not being intellectual.

That's usually because of prejudice, not because of reality, I submit. But we need as Christians to be able to think carefully. not to swallow everything we are taught, but to carefully examine it, to make sure that what we are told is true. And today, we particularly need to do that as we turn to asking and thinking about the difficulties and the problems with the teachings of Charles Darwin. I have given you an extensive handout for a reason.

extensively from Darwin's own writings in this handout. I hope we're going to go through most of it this morning, but I hope you'll keep this, maybe even pass it along to somebody, make a copy. You will note that I've begun by telling you I reference page numbers throughout the handout you have today. When it says origin, that's referring to on the origin of species written by Charles Darwin. When I have the word descent in a page number, that's about from the descent written by Charles Darwin.

And then when it just says Darwin, that's referring to the biography written by Adrian Desmond and James Moore of Warner Books, a division of Time Warner Company, not a Christian company, that quote Darwin. If you recall, we have, this is our third week in looking at this issue. We've got two weeks to go after this. But we began, if you recall, with the life of Darwin. I drew largely from this 700-page biography written by Warner Books.

intentionally wanted a biography not written by Christians. But I think it was helpful to see all of the Christian influences in Darwin's life as pointed out in that biography. The second, last week, we reviewed his teachings. Again, we didn't talk about what somebody else said Darwin taught. We didn't talk about what Christians say he taught. We looked at what he taught.

After I had read both his book, Origin of Species and Descent of Man, I said this is what he says, not what somebody else says he says, which is often what we get. I wanted to look at what he said. And what he said, if you recall, is that there are only two kingdoms among the created beings. there's an animal kingdom and there's a plant kingdom and Darwin in his day went against many naturalists who said no there are really three kingdoms there's a plant kingdom there's an animal kingdom but then there's a human kingdom because humans are so different both in degree and kind from the other animals we should classify them in a separate kingdom Darwin said no no put them in the animal kingdom put humans in the animal kingdom under primates how many of you were taught in your biology classes in high school there are only two kingdoms and we're part of the animal kingdom direct influence of Charles Darwin and we weren't even we didn't even analyze was that right should we be part of the animal kingdom or are we so different and distinct we should have being a separate kingdom. Direct influence of Darwin and his teaching. Number two, we look at his teaching on natural selection or survival of the fittest. And in your handout for today, let me just summarize what that means. Darwin taught that through numerous successive slight changes, He called them variations.

Sometimes we call them mutations. Plus, natural selection by chance of those mutations that give some functional advantage to the plant or animal. Plus, time, a long, long, long time. Darwin said, with those factors, we got the origin of the different types of animals and plants in the world, including human beings. So mutation plus natural selection by chance of the functional advantages of those mutations plus a long, long, long, long, long time, we get all the variety of plants, animals, including humans in the world.

Does everybody understand the basic teaching? I've given you several quotes straight out of his book that highlight that teaching. I'm not going to read those. You can read those on your own. here's how the American National Association of Biology of Teachers

American National Association of Biology of Teachers in 1995 in their official position statement summarized the teaching of Darwin you got to look at your handout now you got to stick with me here this is number three the diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies, and changing environments. Do you all have that? Does everybody see that? These pages are on front and back now, so you've got to look on the back of the page when you turn the page.

The question is, was Darwin correct in his teaching? This Sunday and next Sunday, that's the question we're asking. Was he right in what he taught? Today, I'm going to primarily focus on what Darwin said were the problems and difficulties of his writings. That's going to be my focus.

Next Sunday, we're going to see what Dr. Philip Johnson, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, has to say about Darwin's teachings. but let me summarize quickly a couple of points before we look into what Darwin said about the difficulties and problems of his teachings was Darwin correct? there is some kernel of truth I would submit in what Darwin taught particular plants and animals are able to adapt to their situations and circumstances in life

we are and animals are remarkably adaptive creatures. There is some kernel of truth that the fit survive, is there not? Sometimes the stronger animal is the one who survives. But we must also, I think, acknowledge that often survival has nothing to do with fitness. I don't care how fit you are if you're an animal when the flood comes or the tornado strikes, you don't survive.

So I would submit that while there's a kernel of truth to what Darwin says, it's not the whole truth about how animals and plants and human beings develop. The notion of microevolution, and I'm going to distinguish that from macro. Micro means the smaller type of evolution. The notion of microevolution that says that changes within particular types of plants or animals occurs, I think that is true to a certain degree we can go to the Galapagos Islands and see finches with different types of beaks some of them have developed stronger beaks longer beaks, shorter beaks over the course of time they were able to adapt because of the need but you know what? those finches were still finches those finches didn't become some other type of animal so while in the sense there was some adaptation they were still finches

was darwin correct when he when he taught macro evolution this is what darwin taught he taught that all of the varieties of species of animals throughout the world developed through this process called evolution so that he even said that human beings we were developed through a process of once being a fish and then being an amphibian and then being some member of the ape family and then we finally became human beings through this process of evolution. Is that true? That's the question we're asking today and next Sunday. So let's go and talk about the difficulties.

Let me give Darwin some credit here. Darwin in chapter 6 of his book Origin of Species is very candid in saying there's some difficulties with what I'm proposing here and he talks about the difficulties he explains the difficulties he raises them and then he tries to say why his view gets around the difficulty and I'm going to encourage you if you really have an interest in this take some of the quotes I've given you today and you can go to the page numbers I've referenced and you can read more extensively the full text of what Darwin said. But often we don't hear that Darwin himself said there are a lot of problems or a lot of difficulties. Are you pointing at me? Am I doing something wrong?

There was a gnat? Okay.

So let's give him some credit for presenting the difficulties and the problems. at what he said were the problems and I want you to think about are these problems really problems and serious problems for what he taught all right so let's begin first Darwin himself said his ideas are highly speculative in your handout I think I gave you a quote did I not Many of the views which have been expressed are highly speculative, he said, and some no doubt will prove erroneous. Page 315 of his book Origin. How many of us hear that Darwin said his views are highly speculative? Now let me ask you to think if it's speculative.

This is my cousin.

Why do you laugh?

Why do you laugh?

That's why we're cousins. It has no hair.

All right, listen.

Did you hear that? Listen.

You hear the ribbit, ribbit? Okay. This is my cousin once removed.

Listen one more time. Oops.

Now this is my brother.

Now, why do I show these pictures? And why do you laugh? I would submit to you that had we not been so immersed for a century and a half in this kind of evolutionary thinking, we would find some of this stuff not only speculative but absurd. The notion that I once was a fish and somehow got to be this. You know, sometimes things strike us as absurd because they are absurd.

Something about our common sense tells us that not only is this speculative but absurd. Darwin didn't say his views were absurd. I'm not suggesting he said that, but he did say they were speculative. But the fact that something is speculative doesn't mean it's untrue if the evidence proves it later to be true. But let's understand that Darwin himself, when he proposed what he proposed, he said it's speculative.

All right, let's go to the next problem. Where did the first matter or cells come from? Darwin talks a lot about how different plants and animals evolved, but Darwin never gives us an answer about where did the first matter, the first cells come from. There was an article I was reading that said there was a contest

evolutionist and the contest was going to be let's see who can who can again produce a man and god says to the evolutionist you go first and the evolutionist reaches down and grabs some dirt and god says uh-uh-uh get your own dirt darwin doesn't answer the question of how did it start he doesn't give us a satisfactory explanation now darwin did not believe there was evidence for god he was an agnostic so God he wasn't arguing that God got it started because he didn't believe there was an existence of God that could be proved and he himself was agnostic but this is a problem don't we have to ask how did it get started if you're going to buy into Darwinian evolution how did it get started what produced the first matter or how was the first matter produced and if you do much study you will see that about evolutionists today have gone back and talked about how out of the primordial soup, all these forces happened in these single-celled organisms came to life and suddenly began to evolve. And you still want to say, well, where did the soup come from?

So I think this is a problem or a difficulty with Darwinian evolution. D, Darwin maintains that men are superior to women intellectually in the use of their senses and in the use of their hands. If you buy into Darwinian evolution and buy into what Darwin said, this is a teaching straight from Darwin. And he, in fact, thought it was going to get worse, that the distinction between men and women intellectually and the use of their senses and the use of their hands was going to widen. Men were going to get progressively more intellectual.

Women, and widen the gap from women. Look at your handout. See what he says? I gave you some quotes here. The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man's attaining to a higher preeminence in whatever he takes up than can woman.

Whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands, we may also infer from the law of deviation from averages, the average mental power in men must be above that of woman. and in fact he says if you look at the next quote he talks about the difference between men and women and he says fortunately men pass on some of their characteristics to their daughters he says but for that it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the pea hen i think this is a difficulty because I think he's flat wrong. Women are not intellectually inferior to men or in the use of their senses. It's not true. It's a lie. I think this is a problem. Darwin also taught

that certain races of humans were inferior and would likely become extinct. Look at the quote in your handout this is darwin again page 139 from the descent of man at some future period not very distant as measured by centuries the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world at the same time the anthropomorphous apes will no doubt be exterminated so you hear what he's saying he's saying that the savage races of men and the higher form of apes are going to be exterminated. The break between man and his allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between a man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla. So he was arguing that the Negro or the Australian and the gorilla would at some point be exterminated and then the gap between humans and apes would be wider because then it would be Caucasian or something higher compared to some other form of ape. Do you hear what he's saying?

I think this is a problem, a difficulty, because I think it's untrue. it's incorrect

but if you buy into Darwinian evolution this is what Darwin says have we heard that Darwin says women are inferior intellectually that there are certain races that are inferior some may have if you studied it you've probably read it but this is certainly not what you hear typically when Darwinian evolution is taught alright next problem why do we not see innumerable transitional forms in nature in other words Darwin says by very slow gradual changes one type of animal can become another but it's a very slow long process inch by inch, bit by bit so why when I look out at nature don't I see birds with half a wing

or some reptile that is starting to grow a wing. If evolution is true, I ought to be able to look out at nature, it seems, and find all these intermediate-looking animals. Where are they? Look at what Darwin says himself, page 135 of Origin. Why, he asked, 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? Now Darwin tries to explain this by saying, well, these intermediate species become extinct very quickly and you don't see them and so forth, but it's a tough sell I think he tries to make if his theory is true. I think this is a problem. This is a difficulty.

Why do we not find intermediate varieties in the fossil record? In other words, where is the missing link? if supposedly species developed by these slow gradations, why when we look at all the fossils don't we find these intermediate forms in the fossil record? Why don't we find the missing link between humans and apes? Now you know they're still out there searching hoping they're going to find it.

They haven't found it yet. and be wary of these finds where you're told what they have discovered. Next week you're going to hear more about that, that sometimes things are represented a certain way because somebody's got a view, but not evidence to support the view when they make a discovery. Look at what Darwin says, the quote. Why then, Darwin asks, is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chains and this perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory here's his explanation the explanation lies i believe in the extreme imperfection of the geologic record in other words his view was that when we did more research and found more fossils we were going to find all these missing links The facts in the earlier chapter appear to declare in the plainest manner, he says, that man is descended from some lower form, notwithstanding that connecting links have not hitherto been discovered. The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form. And if you look at the last sentence of the next quote, he says, it should not be forgotten that those regions which are the most likely to afford remains connecting man with extinct ape-like creatures have not as yet been searched by geologists. So Darwin said, we're going to find more fossils. We're going to find the missing links.

But he admitted they did not exist.

And next week, we'll be looking a little more closely from Dr. Johnson, have they found them?

But do you hear the point? Do you understand the point he's making? If evolution is true, shouldn't we see fossils that are these intermediate forms between these different species? All right, the next objection. And again, this is Darwin raising these concerns.

Why is there an abrupt appearance in the fossil record of numerous species? It's sometimes called the Cambrian Explosion. Let me explain that. You'll hear a little more about it next week. The Cambrian Explosion says that in the Cambrian era, which was a period long ago, in the fossil record something amazing was discovered virtually all species of animals we find the fossils in that layer of geologic formations so that suddenly at one point in history it appears that all of these different forms of life were there And the fossils in this Cambrian system represent species of all types.

Yet they're all at the same time, in the same geographic layer, giving evidence that they must have appeared all at the same time.

How is that? If evolution is true, which says it takes slow bit by bit to develop these different species, and it took, Darwin estimated, at least a couple of hundred million years for it to happen. Yet we find them all in this one period in the geologic strata. You understand the point I'm making?

Darwin, this is the quote, The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species belonging to the same genera or families have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection. Well, Darwin again said, we're going to find more fossils that will lead up to that Cambrian explosion. But this was a serious difficulty, and he knew it.

It's still a difficulty. How did this happen, if Darwinian evolution is true? All right, let's go next. How does Darwinian evolution explain complex structures like the eye, the human eye? And Darwin's wife, Emma, had some stuff to say to him about his view in this regard.

In other words, remember Darwin says everything's got to happen just bit by bit. Yet you can't just suddenly have a new structure in an animal just appear, poof, like just poof, a human eye. It had to have happened little bit, little bit, little bit, little bit, part of the eye, another part of the eye, another part of the eye. But each part that developed had to give a functional advantage to the animal. And if there wasn't some advantage for that one little bit, then you can't explain how it developed by Darwinian evolution.

Michael Behe calls this irreducible complexity. microbiologist. In other words, the human eye makes no sense if you don't have all the parts together at once because you need all the parts for it to work. But Darwinian evolution can't explain how did it all just happen at once because by Darwinian evolution it had to happen bit by bit by bit. See the point? Here's what Darwin says, if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But he says I can find no such case and he tries to give an explanation of how he thinks the eye could have developed over time. But look what he says about the eye. To suppose that the eye with all of its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

And Darwin's biographer said that Darwin tried to steer away from the eye because, as the biographer said, he could not explain how the first eye was formed. And in fact, the biographer went on to say the human eye put Darwin into a cold sweat. Look what his wife said. His wife read his work, and when she read his explanation about the human eye, she put a great assumption, she scribbled, E.D., that's Emma Darwin. She scribbled against his claim that the human eye may possibly have been acquired by gradual selection of slight, but in each case useful deviation.

So he softened the passage still more, but from then on the piecemeal evolution of a complex integrated organ like the eye left him in a cold sweat. Do you hear the point? Let's look at the eye just a moment.

Interesting facts about the eye. And I stop to give these facts because the eye is so complex. It's a real difficulty for a Darwinian evolutionist to explain how it developed. your eye. You've got a cornea that's the front window that bends light rays into an orderly pattern. You then have the pupil that's adjustable gateway for light. All right, I want you to do something with me. Everybody, get next to somebody whose eye you don't mind looking into. Come on.

you do what I'm going to say. I'm going to tell you to close your eyes. I want you to leave them closed for about 30 seconds. Then I want you to open them and I want you to watch the pupil. Here we go.

Close your eyes.

Alright, now open and look.

Can you see it? Or is it too dark? Can you see it? Isn't that wild? How did something like that develop through evolution?

The lens is the envelope of fluid, the size and shape of a tiny oval pill, and it's surrounded by muscles that help you focus it. Okay?

The next part of the eye is the retina. The retina is the screen on the back of your eye. And so when the light comes in, on the back of a screen and your retina has 137 million light sensitive receptor cells in one square inch and when the image comes through on the back of your retina it's upside down so when I'm seeing Dan on the back of my retina his image is upside down but then from the retina we have the optic nerve that shoots the image to my brain in 0.002 seconds and when it hits my brain my brain Makes me see it right side up. Now how in the world?

Well, it's just by chance. I mean, these things just happen.

Tears. A steady stream to flush away the dust. And those tears contain a microbe killer called lysozyme. So it's killing things that can hurt your eyes, those tears are. protective cover they blink three to six times every minute

so do you see how does darwinian evolution explain the development of an something that complex if you don't have all the pieces together at once it doesn't work you got to have a cornea you got to have a pupil you got to have a retina you got to have a brain you got to have an optic nerve but any you take out any of those parts it doesn't work you might could take off the eyelid and it could still work but other parts it doesn't work you see the problem the difficulty what about structures in animals or plants that are not for functional or utilitarian advantage Darwin said every change had to have a functional advantage or utilitarian advantage but what about things that are just there because they're pretty or just

for variety's sake Why is it that, you know, does it really make a difference functionally if a tree has a different shaped leaf versus another leaf? Or is there something there just for variety? Maybe from a creator who wanted to give us something. Is every aspect of color in the universe or in the world, every aspect of color in humans, in animals, in plants, can we explain that by it always just being for a functional advantage? Darwin tried to.

He said, well, we know some color can attract sexes, so maybe we can explain color by sexual attraction. But Darwin himself knew he was struggling here. He said in The Origin of Species that, if you look in your handout there,

some naturalists believe that many structures have been created for the sake of beauty, to delight man or the creator, which he said is beyond the scope of scientific discussion, or for the sake of mere variety, a view already discussed. such doctrines if true would be absolutely fatal to my theory did you hear that? he said if you can't explain the reason for each structure or each color

by saying it gave an advantage, a functional advantage his theory, that would be fatal to his theory but in the descent of man which he wrote some over a decade later he says at page 51 I can now see probable that all organic beings, including man, possess peculiarities of structure which neither now nor were formerly of any service to them and which therefore are of no physiological importance.

I think, do you hear what I think he just admitted? I'm arguing here that he just admitted something that he said in the origin of species would be fatal to his theory.

Are you with me? You see the point I'm making?

I think you did. What about neuter insects like neuter ants? And you see some quotes there. Darwin was amazed by the fact that there were neuter ants in ant colonies. You know what neuter means?

They weren't male or female. They were sterile. But there were several different types of sterile ants. And he's saying, man, if the only way animals develop a certain way is by, you know, they have mutations and they change and then they give it to their offspring and then their offspring change a little bit and pass it on to the next offspring, how do you explain neuter ants? Because neuter ants can't reproduce themselves.

Yet we see different varieties of neuter ants. happen if you if you can't neuter ants can't produce neuter ants to produce different types of neuter ants with different variations and he he admits this this this this thing nearly drove him over the edge on his theory well he finally came to the conclusions that there were certain non-sterile ants that always produced sterile ants which

you know why would that be an advantage why would darwinian natural selection make be an advantage to make something sterile that can't reproduce itself he tries to explain that but it's really a tough sell with darwinian evolution that says changes that are kept that are passed on are changes that are beneficial well how can it be beneficial to not be able to reproduce yourself to be sterile. He tries to come up with, particularly in things like ants, and he tries to come up with arguments about why evolution could explain that. It's a problem. It's a difficulty.

Next, we just got two or three more. How about electric organs of fish and luminous organs of certain insects? You know, there's some fish that light up, like the electric eel, and there's some, like fireflies. How in the

Look what Darwin said. Is this L on your handout? Of the fish, he said, it is impossible to conceive by what steps these wondrous organs have been produced.

The luminous organs which occur in a few insects belonging to widely different families and which are situated in different parts of the body offer, under our present state of ignorance, a difficulty almost parallel with that of the electric organs in fish. He couldn't explain how this wondrous thing that animals light up, how in the world did that happen with Darwinian evolution? It would take something big. Again, that's kind of that complex structure. m does the fact does does does the fact that there are some similarities similarities of structure between humans and animals prove that humans descended from some lower form darwin argued that look animals a lot of their structures are like ours they have bony skeletons animals have hearts they have tissue like we have tissue and he tried to show how the tissue and the makeup of animals was so much like humans.

He says, isn't it obvious that we must have come from them because we are similar to them?

You know, the 2002 BMW X5 came from the Model T. I mean, by evolution. I mean, because look, the Model T's got tires. The X5's got tires. There's an engine in the Model T.

Yes, not nearly as sophisticated, and that X5 has now developed the ability to put out sound through the radio, this thing we call radio, and it's got a GPS, global positioning system. But that Model T had an engine, and we see an engine in the X5, and just because the X5 has developed along the evolutionary chain more Model T and they have seats in that Model T and the seats are plusher in the X5 but you can plainly see because of the similarities between the Model T and the X5 that it must be true that the Model T simply developed, developed, developed until today we have the X5.

Now that's a simplistic example but isn't there also a possible explanation that there was one common designer that made them all the cars the animals the plants and so you see some similarities yes but some magnificent differences too i think darwin there's a problem at least a difficulty maybe he drew one conclusion when he saw similarities between animals and humans but maybe there's another explanation my last one is it credible to believe that humans are developed from some lower animals given human intellect human sense of morals and the human belief in the spiritual

and i've given you quotes the intellect of human beings look at the second quote it may be urged that as man differs so greatly in his mental power from all other animals there must be some error in the conclusion that man is descended from some lower form no doubt the difference in this respect is enormous and he talked about how humans have this moral capacity and he talks about throughout humanity you see a belief in the spiritual and an ability to comprehend spiritual things how did darwin deal with this difficulty darwin said well look yeah humans are very

but you can look at animals and you can see they've got intelligence too and just because humans have more intelligence just means they're farther down the evolutionary chain it doesn't mean that they're different in kind from animals and animals have some moral sense he believes because they will help their own an ant will help an ant in trouble he argued a dog might help another dog that was part of one of his puppies

but Darwin was amazed by the moral sense in humans and then animals you don't see animals making little altars to offer sacrifices or to worship but you do in humans you know what I think there's a difficulty here Darwin elevated the intellect of animals and wanted to bring down that of humans no animal has the intellectual capacity of humans. No animal has the ability to compose like a Mozart or a Beethoven or even to do something simple like I can do. I can sit down and play the Marines hymn on the piano.

How about how many animals have drawn on cave walls pictures of humans, but humans drew pictures of animals on walls. How many animals will dive into the water to rescue someone who's even not part of their family? But we've seen human beings who remarkably will dive into water to save a drowning person who is of no relation to them whatsoever. We've seen firemen charge into burning homes to save children to whom they have no relation whatsoever. And we've seen human beings lift their eyes upward to the universe and the heavens and say, there must be a God.

No animals do that. I want to submit to you that we are a different, not just in degree of intellect and morals and our understanding of the spiritual, we are different in kind from the animals. And Darwin's attempt to bring us down falls short. It's a real problem to say we're not distinct. I want to argue there should be a third kingdom, a human kingdom, because we are distinct in kind and agree from animals.