Rational Faith

Dawkins Joins Ranks of Evolutionists who Disprove Evolution





From its inception Darwinian evolution had embedded in its very definition the seeds of its own destruction. There are actually a number of these seeds, and Darwin himself recognized one of the more obvious ones that disprove evolution that was clear even in his day. But let me come back to Darwin since his refutation - which he himself acknowledged - has been pointed out many times.  Instead let me start with Richard Dawkins, the famous atheist and evolutionist who as pointed out in the title, has joined Charles Darwin in the ranks of evolutionists who, in their efforts to validate evolution, have actually decisively proven it false.

Following are four evolutionists, including Richard Dawkins, who have provided criteria by which to disprove evolution showing it to be false. So according to their own criteria, evolution is demonstrably false.



In an article by Intelligent Design proponent Casey Luskin titled "Intelligent Design Passes the Dawkins Test"[1] Luskin points out a test that Dawkins put forth multiple times apparently because he was certain it would prove evolution to be true. This shows the power of the lie to deceive since Dawkins clearly believed his proof would be verified. But since Darwinian evolution is false, it is not surprising that this latest attempt to prove it true has done the opposite and once again proven it false. Here's an overview of the failure.

Darwin and even neo-Darwinists claim that all life on earth - all of it from insects to birds to whales to worms to humans are all descendant from a single original ancestor sometimes called "LUCA" for Last Universal Common Ancestor. Supposedly as these creatures diversified, they created a single "tree of life" that relates them all back to the original ancestor. Here is the Milwaukee Public Museum's depiction of the tree of life:


The problem, as Luskin explains it is this:

"The test that Dawkins has formulated goes this way: He says that if Darwinian evolution is correct, every gene in a group of organisms will give “approximately the same tree of life.” If ID [Intelligent Design] is correct, on the other hand, the designer could have “picked and chosen” the “best proteins for the job” in each organism. In that case, he says, genes would not all give the same tree of genetic resemblances."[2]

So given any particular gene in a group of organisms, if you construct a tree of life from the various genes taken from the various organisms, they should all yield the same tree of life. Is that true? Decisively note. Scientists have now sequenced the genomes of a great number of creatures. Consequently they now know that they do not yield approximately the same tree of life. It's not even close. Dawkins was wrong. So one of the foundational ideas of Darwinian evolution - a single universal tree of life - has been proved wrong. But don't expect that to be persuasive for evolutionists. Because for most evolutionists, they believe evolution not because of the scientific evidence, but as a faith commitment in a position that allows them to have a faith that doesn't require God.

Dr. Richard Buggs, a professor of evolutionary genomics at Queen Mary University of London is one of the scientists who recognizes that genomes do not produce a single tree of life, and cites a paper that shows "discordant" trees - in other words, not a single of life and offers this depiction of many different gene trees - 763 to be precise.



I mentioned above that Darwin himself recognized one of the glaring problems of his theory - that being the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. According to Darwin, complex creatures are always preceded by a serious of less complex creatures starting with very simple creatures which evolve into the highly complex creatures we see today. The supposed mechanism that accomplishes this change is natural selection acting over long periods of time. (Neo-Darwinists add random mutations to generate the needed variety.)

Darwinists incorrectly believe that fossil remains represent a record of the various life forms that have existed over the supposed millions of years since the beginning of life on earth. But such transitional forms do not exist in the fossil record - which Darwin recognized. This is not surprising to those who believe what's clear from the biblical record: that fossils are the record of burial of the creatures who died in the great flood of Noah's day. But since Darwinists believe the fossil record is a record of the history of life on earth, there should be a record of all the transitional forms that have existed since the beginning of life.[3] Such a record of transitional forms does not exist, which Darwin himself recognized and lamented:

“Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, … and that during these vast periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. …

To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earlier periods prior to the Cambrian, I can give no satisfactory answer.”[4]

Darwin acknowledges the problem of no transitional forms and supposes it is because the record is incomplete - they haven't been discovered yet. It's been more than 150 years since Darwin proposed his theory, and since they've been looking. The transitional forms - the missing links - are still missing. This, as Darwin himself admitted, disproves his theory.


J.B.S. Haldane

Writing for CMI, Jonathan Sarfati states, "... in the late 1940s, the famous evolutionist J.B.S. Haldane predicted that we would find no wheels or magnets in living creatures. This is because these would not work unless fully formed. Thus natural selection could not have produced them step by small step, each an improvement over the previous one."[5] But such wheels have indeed been found - in bacteria. In particular the marine bacterium MO-1, which has seven flagella driven by seven motors requiring multiple (24 to be exact) fibrils which act as bearings (that are themselves wheels) that allow the flagella to rotate freely and in the proper direction. " Such motors thus falsify evolution by Haldane’s own words" as Sarfati notes.

Mary Schweitzer

In the course of studying a T. Rex bone fossil, a creature that is supposed have been dead for more than 65 million years, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, an evolutionist who believes in the requisite millions of years, discovered blood vessels and other soft dinosaur tissues. Reportedly she remarked, "It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But of course, I couldn't believe it...the bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?" She couldn't believe it because the supposed 65 million plus old samples looked like "modern" samples. But that flies in the face of evolutionary dogma for the age of the earth and consequently the age of dinosaurs.

Light Microgaphy of one of the red blood cells inside
a T.Rex bone marrow blood vessel. Image Credit:
Mary Schweitzer 2005


How could the blood cells survive that long, she asks. The point is, they can't. All biologists know that. But to keep the evolutionary story alive - a story which requires evolution over millions of years - they have to come up with a response to how this discovery of clearly young dinosaur tissue could be possible. Believers in a literal understanding of Genesis would say they look young because they are young - less than 6,000 years old (and since they likely died in the flood, less than 4,400 years old.) But their response? Iron in the blood of dinosaurs preserved the blood vessels and cells. Is that believable? No, and CMI explains why not here.

Additionally it should be noted that it wasn't just blood cells that were found. There were other tissues found like hemoglobin, un-mineralized bone, collagen and skin pigments among other things. It has been noted that these materials - particularly collagen (used for the framework to build body parts like skin, bones, cartilage and ligaments) - would not be preserved by iron and would have decayed away long ago if the specimen were truly 65 million or more years old.


If evolutionists were truly "following the science" in their beliefs about evolution, they would have to conclude that evolution is false. That is what the science clearly shows. And we have not even touched on things like the origin of information in DNA, the extreme complexity of cells, and the evidence of a young earth - killing the millions of years needed for evolution. It is quite clear that the evidence clearly demonstrates that evolutionary theory is dead and untenable. The only reason it continues as a theory is that it functions as a religion for many thousands of people and scientists who need an origin story for the all the life that we see on earth. Doubt it functions as a religion? Watch the religious zeal that is displayed when you deny it.

And despite the fact that evolution does not even claim to know the origin of life, and has time and again been proven false, adherents continue to follow it. Not because it's needed for science. It's not. It's needed to prop-up their anti-God, anti-Christian world view and faith. That is very clear.

What is equally clear is the only tenable position is the biblical one:
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen 1.1)
In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and the word was God. ... And the Word became flesh. (John 1.1,14)

The Word who became flesh - Jesus -  the one who created the universe also created you. Time and again evolutionary concepts are proven false. Only those running from God continue to believe evolution after seeing the clear evidence. To those who continue to believe evolution, the only question is, will you continue to run from God, or will you allow the good shepherd, Jesus,  find you and bring you home to God?



Related Articles:

Question Evolution Day 2022 - The Cambrian Explosion
Evolution Falsified - Again


Duane Caldwell | August 29, 2023


1. Casey Luskin, "Intelligent Design Passes the Dawkins Test", Evolution News & Science Today, May 15, 2023, https://evolutionnews.org/2023/05/intelligent-design-passes-the-dawkins-test/

2. Luskin,  "Intelligent Design Passes the Dawkins Test"

3. In passing, pure Darwinism offers no theory for the origin of life. Darwinists who realize that offers an incomplete world view had hopes of chemical evolution providing an answer to the origin of life, but the more they learn, the more apparent that abiogenesis - life from lifelessness - is impossible.)

4. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Sixth London Edition, with all Additions and Corrections, First published 1859; This edition published by Enhanced Media ,  p. 292 Kindle Loc 5212

5. Jonathan Sarfati, "Germ with Seven Motors In One!", Creation.com, 15 January 2013, https://creation.com/germ-7-motors-in-1 



Featured: Dawkins and Darwin's Tree of Life, Composite, Duane Caldwell
© 2023