Scientists Reach for Evolution's Replacement | The Institute for Creation Research
Scientists Reach for Evolution's Replacement
Most people say that evolution is true, so why do a growing number of scientists doubt it? These skeptics don’t question evolution’s premise that nature alone is somehow responsible for crafting creatures out of stardust. The debate centers on how nature might have achieved this incredible feat.

Where and how did the first complicated structures (like eyes) arise through natural processes? Indiana University Biologist Armin Moczek told The Guardian, “We still do not have a good answer. This classic idea of gradual change, one happy accident at a time, has so far fallen flat.”1

How could such fundamentals fail after over a century ensconced in textbooks?

Biologist Olen Brown and systems simulation expert David A. Hullender detailed roadblocks for Darwin’s gradual evolution in their report published in Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology.2

Neo-Darwinism has long theorized that fitter individuals take over a population. Over long ages, the fittest individuals supposedly produced people from primordial soup. Brown and Hullender squarely criticized the capability of this paradigm, saying,

Thus, survival of the fittest is illogical when proposed as adequate for selecting the origination of all complex, major, new body-types and metabolic functions because the multiple changes in multiple genomes that are required have intermediate stages without advantage; selection would not reasonably occur, and disadvantage or death would logically prevail.2

If one could collect a nickel for every time a Darwin doubter has made this same rational argument over the last century, he could afford more than one cup of today’s fancy coffee.

For example, I wrote two years ago,

The imaginary process of transforming fish fins into human legs would leave the in-between creature either unable to swim or unable to walk. Take enough of a fish’s fins away on its supposed journey to land life, and it loses its ability to track down dinner before it becomes dinner.3

Whereas I invoked a supernatural solution to the total inadequacy of naturalistic evolution, this duo proposed a statistical approach to help find answers. Statistics might help analyze trends, but it takes an actual engineer—not some math formula—to build working mechanisms like legs and eyes.

This Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology report starts with sensible doubt about classic evolutionary tales, but its commitment to nature alone leaves readers just as lost for answers as before. Good thing the Bible has better answers. It tells all about a supernatural craftsman—exactly what this created world needed for it to look the way it does.

1. Buranyi, S. Do we need a new theory of evolution? The Guardian. Posted on June 28, 2022, accessed July 20, 2022.
2. Brown, O., and D. A. Hullender. Neo-Darwinism must Mutate to survive. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology. 172: 24-38.
3. Thomas, B. 2020. How Can You Refute Evolution? Acts & Facts. 49 (11).

*Dr. Brian Thomas is Research Scientist at the Institute for Creation Research and earned his Ph.D. in paleobiochemistry from the University of Liverpool.

The Latest
Volcanoes on Mars??? | The Creation Podcast: Episode 58
Geologic activity shows signs of youth not just on our planet, but all throughout the universe. As we discover more about our solar system and the...

The Brain’s Amazing Ability of Visual Perception
Scientists will never fully understand the brain’s operation.1,2,3 As neurological research continues, it will only reveal more...

Continuous Environmental Tracking : An Engineering-Based Model...
Purpose The Institute for Creation Research is engaged in our biggest science initiative in the last two decades, and it could be our most important...

CET: Testing the Cavefish Model
Staff Writer Purpose The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is testing an engineering- based model of rapid biological adaptation called...

Original Biochemistry in Fossils
Purpose In 1997, paleontologist Dr. Mary Schweitzer accidentally stumbled upon what appeared to be blood vessels and blood cells from a T. rex...

Debunking an Iconic Uniformitarian Ice Age Theory
Purpose The Milankovitch, or astronomical, theory holds that the timing of Ice Ages is controlled by slow changes in Earth’s orbital and...

ICR and Explaining the Ice Age
by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D., and Michael J. Oard, M.S.* Purpose There is strong geological evidence for an Ice Age, so the Institute for Creation...

Planetary Magnetism
Purpose In 1971, Dr. Thomas Barnes publicized a then “trade secret” of scientists studying the earth’s magnetic field, which...

Cosmology Research
Purpose Taking the Hebrew text of Scripture at face value without inserting gaps or revising the meanings, the universe is only about 6,000 years...

The Coconino Sandstone: Water, not Wind
Purpose The Coconino Sandstone is one of the most well-known formations in Grand Canyon. The blond-colored sandstone, just three layers down from...