You will often hear that contemporary evolutionary theory is supported by overwhelming evidence. But much of this evidence is unimpressive unless youre already convinced that naturalistic evolution must be true.
To understand the kind of evidence cited by naturalistic evolutionists, lets go back to the stadium example from the above question, What is Specified Complexity?
Imagine that you challenged your friends account of how the arrows landed in the targets.
"No problem," replies your friend. "I can prove it to you."
He holds up a bow and asks, "What is this?"
He then leads you to the target with the arrow in it and asks, "Now, what is this?"
"Yes! With an arrow in it," he exclaims.
Finally, your friend leads you to a panel with some switches on it. He flips the switches back and forth, which turns the stadium lights off and on.
Your friend then summarizes his case: "Ive shown you the bow. Ive shown you the arrow in the target, and Ive shown you that I can turn the stadium lights off and on. What more evidence do you need?"
The evidence your friend presents is certainly consistent with his story. The problem, however, is that its also consistent with other explanations, including the more likely explanation that he entered the stadium, turned on the light, walked over to the target and jammed the arrow in the bulls eye.
Much of the evidence for naturalistic evolution is no more decisive than our friends story.
For example, following the news in June 2000 that the human genome had been sequenced, Nobel laureate David Baltimore announced in a New York Times opinion piece that the discovery "confirms something obvious and expected, yet controversial: our genes look much like those of fruit flies, worms and even plants. [t]he genome shows that we all descended from the same humble beginnings and that the connections are written in our genes. That should be, but won't be, the end of creationism."
Such "evidence" is not remotely decisive unless youve already decided that only naturalistic causes could have created such organisms as fruit flies, worms and humans. But thats precisely what is at issue.
In fact, there is systematic evidence against contemporary evolution theory. Researchers in such fields as paleontology, embryology, microbiology, biochemistry and genetics have uncovered systematic evidence that is deeply at odds with naturalistic evolution.
This FAQ will gradually be expanded to review some of that evidence. In the meantime, if youre interested in further study, check out books and videos referenced at the end of this section.
Additionally, if you have the technical background, it would pay to examine some of the original sources cited in these books. When you study the scientific literature, youll find that there is a huge disconnect between that literature and the popularized "science" that youll read in the press and basic biology texts.
ARN Recommends: For well-researched summaries of the evidence against naturalistic evolution, see the following resources:
Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Jonathan Wells
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis Michael Denton
Darwin on Trial Phillip Johnson
Icons of Evolution. Cold Water Media, 2002.
A Critique of Darwinist Icons. ARN, 2002.
Unlocking the Mystery of Life. Illustra Media, 2002.