Before the 19th century, much of Europe was Christian. People believed that life was created by God, as described in the Bible. This changed dramatically when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859 and The Descent of Man in 1871.1 Darwin’s theory of evolution made a bold claim: all life forms on Earth, from bacteria to humans, descended from simple, single-celled organisms through microevolutionary processes like natural selection acting over millions of years.
For the first time, a naturalistic explanation was proposed for life’s diversity, and for the existence of humans. If true, it removed the need for a Creator. If life could emerge and diversify through purely natural processes, why invoke God at all?
The Decline of Christianity
Over the next 150 years, scientific materialism (i.e. the physical world is the only thing that exists) and atheism (i.e. God does not exist) became ascendant while Christianity declined.
A survey done in 2018 by Pew Research Centre showed that only 18% of Western Europeans attend church; 46% are non-practicing Christians and 24% are non-religiously affiliated. Of those who still identify as Christians, only 14% of Christians say that religion is very important to them and only 23% believe in God with absolute certainty. Most religiously-unaffiliated Europeans agree with the statement that “science makes religion unnecessary in life.”
For a region that has been Christian for close to two millennials, this is a drastic turn of events.2
Today, evolutionary theory is widely taught as fact in schools and universities. Accepting it as settled truth is often seen as a prerequisite for being taken seriously in academic circles. For many, it has become the default explanation for life’s origin and development. But what if the evidence supporting this narrative is far weaker than most assume?
To assess this, we first need to understand a key distinction: microevolution versus macroevolution.
Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
After Darwin, scientists made a distinction between two different levels of evolutionary changes3:
Microevolution
Definition: Small changes within a species or population (defined by the potential to interbreed)
Evidence: Observable and uncontroversial
Macroevolution
Definition: Large-scale changes requiring the development of new body plans
Evidence: Lacks direct evidence and relies on extrapolating the evidence for microevolution
A classic example of microevolution is Darwin’s finches. Darwin observed that beak size and shape varied across finch species, to suit different food sources. These small adaptations helped finches to survive in diverse environments. From this, Darwin argued that such minor changes, given enough time, could accumulate and eventually lead to large-scale evolutionary changes, i.e. macroevolution.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/four-or-the-species-of-finch-observed-by-darwin-on-the-galapagos-islands-802464738-5c452bbbc9e77c0001d34a79.jpg)
Microevolution itself is uncontroversial. Even critics of Darwinian evolution accept that microevolution enables species to adapt to changing environments through the selection of existing traits. This same principle is also the basis for the domestic breeding of dogs and horses, which has been practiced for thousands of years.
Having said that, evolutionary theory also claims universal common descent — the idea that all living organisms evolved from single-celled microorganisms. This requires macroevolution, where entirely new body plans and complex structures developed through accumulated mutations and natural selection over millions of years. Unlike microevolution, macroevolution lacks direct experimental evidence.
Lack of Evidence for Macroevolution
One of the most thorough experiments is the Nobel Prize-winning “Heidelberg screen” on fruit flies. Researchers generated thousands of mutations that covered all the genes required to specify the body plan of the fruit fly. Do you know what happened?
Early mutations killed the deformed larvae outright. Later acting morphological mutations produced deformities that rendered flies unable to survive in the wild, fly, or reproduce.4,5
Can Beneficial Mutations Accumulate Into Macromutations?
What do evolutionists say in response to this problem? While they acknowledge that most mutations are harmful, evolutionists propose that in rare cases, a mutation can actually benefit an organism. Given millions of years, these beneficial mutations would gradually accumulate, eventually leading to new body structures and complex life forms.
Evolutionists frequently point to the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria as evidence that beneficial mutations do happen. However, does this example really support macroevolution?
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria typically comes with a fitness cost. The resistance mutations help bacteria to survive in the presence of antibiotics, but they also make the bacteria less fit in normal, antibiotic free environments.6
While there are isolated cases of beneficial mutations without associated fitness costs, like a strain of E. Coli bacteria that gained antibiotic resistance in an antibiotic-free environment7, they still do not prove macroevolution. The resistance mutation observed in the E. coli study did not produce new biological structures. Instead, it involved tweaking an existing enzyme to function slightly better under thermal stress. Such examples still show adaptation within strict genetic limits, i.e. microevolution, not macroevolution.
This led Geneticist John F. McDonald to note a “great Darwinian Paradox”8:
“Genes that are variable affect only minor aspects of form and function, while genes that govern major changes do not vary, or vary only to the detriment of the organism.”
The evidence shows a qualitative, not quantitative, barrier to evolution that time alone cannot solve. The kind of mutations required for new body plans —the very changes needed for macroevolution and Darwinian theory — seem to be genetically insurmountable, not just statistically rare.
Evolution’s Quiet Crisis
In “Giving Up Darwin”, Professor David Gelernter, who was once a firm believer in evolution, announced his disillusionment with Darwinian theory.9 After rigorous reflection, he concluded that evolution failed to explain the emergence of new species, despite its success in accounting for small adjustments like changes to beak shape or fur density. The explanatory gaps were simply too significant to ignore.
Even within the evolutionary community, questions are growing. In 2008, the journal Nature reported that prominent biologists met to “plot the future course of evolutionary theory”. One biologist, Scott Gilbert, admitted that evolution “is good at modelling the survival of the fittest, but not the arrival of the fittest.”10
However, if there are doubts within the scientific community, why does the public not hear anything about it?
The answer is political, not scientific. In the same report, it was noted that the “dominant political concern was a fear of attack from fundamentalists.” Evolutionists were worried that “any hint of splits in evolutionary theory or dissatisfaction with Darwinism” would be like “handing ammunition” to the creationists. Hence, regardless of their satisfaction or otherwise with evolutionary theory, evolutionists were cautioned not to criticise evolution in a grandstanding way.
Why This Matters
Darwin’s theory is no longer just a scientific idea. It has become the foundation of an entire worldview. If macroevolution is true, then all the beauty and complexity of life, including humanity itself, is the accidental by-product of blind, purposeless processes. This narrative strips away the idea of intentional design, leaving no room, or need, for a Creator.
For many, evolution has even become their replacement religion. It answers life’s deepest questions without God, offering a comforting framework that avoids the demands of a Creator. Challenging evolution is not merely challenging a theory; it is to confront a deeply held belief system.
But if we value truth over comfort, we must face the evidence honestly. We cannot keep ignoring the cracks in evolutionary theory simply because the alternative feels uncomfortable. Rationality demands that we follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if it leads us back to the possibility of a Creator.
In the next post, we will turn to another aspect of evolution: the fossil record. Does it truly show a slow, step-by-step progression of life from simple to complex forms, or does it tell a different story? Stay tuned as we continue examining the evidence, and whether it offers a satisfying explanation for life without a Creator.
References
1 Kindt, J., & Latty, T. (2018, May 30). Guide to the classics: Darwin’s on the Origin of Species. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/guide-to-the-classics-darwins-on-the-origin-of-species-96533
2 Author, N. (2018). Being Christian in Western Europe. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2018/05/29/being-christian-in-western-europe/
3 Evolution at different scales: micro to macro. (n.d.). University of California, Berkeley. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-at-different-scales-micro-to-macro/
4 The Four-Winged Fly. (2008, October 14). National Center for Science Education. https://ncse.ngo/four-winged-fly
5 Meyer, S. C. (2013). Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. Harper Collins.
6 Melnyk, A. H., Wong, A., & Kassen, R. (2014). The fitness costs of antibiotic resistance mutations. Evolutionary Applications, 8(3), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12196
7 Rodríguez-Verdugo, A., Gaut, B. S., & Tenaillon, O. (2013). Evolution of Escherichia coli rifampicin resistance in an antibiotic-free environment during thermal stress. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-13-50
8 Gelernter, D. (2019). Giving up Darwin. Claremont Review of Books. https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/giving-up-darwin/
9 Ibid.
10 Whitfield, J. (2008). Biological theory: Postmodern evolution? Nature 455, 281–284. https://doi.org/10.1038/455281a
(a PDF version is available at: https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080917/pdf/455281a.pdf)