Science in Christian Perspective
Evolution: Required or Optional in a Science Course?
JOHN N. MOORE
Department of Natural Science,
Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan
From: JASA 22 (September 1970): 82-87.
Students, teachers, and parents encounter emphatic presentation of organic evolution as fact. An objective pattern of opposition, based on scientific work, to this type of teaching of organic evolution is provided. Two theories of evolution: the general and the special, are explicated. Each theory of evolution is examined with regard to reasonable predictions that can be stated within limits of the normal scientific viewpoint. Conclusions are reached that the fossil record (the historical record) cannot be used to support the general theory of evolution; there are no intermediate or transitional forms in the fossil record. Data of the so-called fossil "series", gene combinations and recombinations, hybrization, mutation, migration, isolation, distribution, and selection may be interpreted from the viewpoint of gradual evolutionism or instantaneous creationism. The general theory of evolution should, at most, be optional for a science course, while the special theory of evolution is an appropriately required area of study to exemplify characteristic scientific procedures and findings.
Many Christian parents are asking these days, should evolution he required or optional in a science course? A corollary question might he raised: Is there any basis in scientific work for an objective answer to this question? Across the nation parental attention has mounted regarding methods of teaching evolution in science courses. Such increased attention has been a result of increased adoptions of the BSCS textbooks produced under the direction of leaders of the American Institute of Biological Sciences.
Actually criticisms of the teaching of evolution have been heard for a long time in many lands. Scholars criticized application of Darwin's ideas in his day, professors pointed out fallacies in Haeckcl's reasoning, and so likewise for social Darwinists. Many sources of documentation are available to substantiate this statement.
And within the last few years, even biologists themselves have been highly critical and have written expressly in opposition to monophyletic evolutionary thought. Wistar Institute in Philadelphia published a Symposium Monograph in 1967 entitled, "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution". And McGraw-Hill, Inc., has published in a house organ, Scientific Research, two such articles: "Heresy in the halls of biology: mathematicians question Darwinism" (November, 1967) and "Thinking the unthinkable: are evolutionists wrong?" (September 1, 1969).
I mention these few references simply to point out that evolution is under criticism once more (I should say still under criticism, since criticisms by scientists of evolution and natural selection in every decade since Darwin's day can he documented thoroughly). In point of fact, of course, evolution should he criticized in accordance with the tenets of scientific attitude and operative scientific methodologies.
Especially apropos the question whether evolution should be required or optional in a science course, I want to aver that this question may be answered on scientific grounds, as should be the case for a subject so much discussed by men who call themselves scientists. That this question may be resolved on a scientific basis is a crucial fact which opponents of the so-called theory of evolution should affirm loudly, to be followed out in practice. To set a possible pattern of opposition to the teaching of evolution is the purpose of this position paper.
I feel that evolution should not be taught as if it were observable, or as if someone had actually seen one animal form change into another animal form.
One brief interjection as added introduction. Ideas expressed in this
not be confused with the position maintained by those who would try to prevent
the teaching of evolution. I do not support censorship. I do not
of the teaching of evolution from school curricula. Rather I assert
must be mentioned since it is such an ancient idea of men, but I maintain that
the important question is, "How should evolution be
taught?" The manner
of teaching is all important. I feel that evolution should
not be taught as if it were observable, or as if someone had actually seen one
animal form change into another animal form.
Although this is a general position paper, without extensive documentation, some attention must be given to definition of terms, at least briefly. In the following discussion I will use definitions which were proposed by British physiologist C. A. Kerkut in his book, Implications of Evolution, published by Pergamon Press (1960). These definitions are now recognized by responsible critics of theories of evolution.
First, a definition of the General Theory of Evolution, which is the amoeba-to-man thesis. According to this theory, all living forms in the world have risen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic beginning. Thus the first living cell "evolved" into complex multicellular forms of life; these gave rise to all forms of invertebrates; in turn, invertebrates "evolved" into vertebrates; fish into amphihia, amphibia into reptiles, reptiles into birds and mammals, early mammals into primates, and finally primates "evolved" into man. Unmistakably this is the basic meaning of the term evolution.
Second, I would define, as does Kerkut, the Special Theory of Evolution, which states that many living animals (and plants) can be observed, over the course of time, to undergo changes so that new varieties are formed. This can be demonstrated in certain eases by experiments, controlled experiments. Yet it is not clear at all whether such limited changes that bring about modified speciation are 0f the same nature as those involved in the appearance of new phyla, new classes, new orders, new families, new genera, and on the invertebrate level, appearance of new species. Is it possible that so-called "speciation" is actually "genetic variation"? If so, let us say so. In short, scientists know of no broad transition from species to species, but most specifically only variation to variation.
And the question might be asked, what is science? The word "science" comes from the Latin for knowledge. A formal definition of science from the Oxford Dictionary reads as follows:
A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated tenths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which ineludes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain.
Scientific activity involves, from this definition, facts which can be observed
or demonstrated and laws, which have been demonstrated also, by means
methods for discovery. At the core of scientific method or methods is
repeatability or reproducibility. Other synonyms for this core idea
and control. Of course, it is true that scientific method is built upon basic
assumptions of all scientists, such as uniformity of nature or cause
and one can recognize theoretical assumptions and even experimental assumptions
involved in experimental repeatability. Nevertheless, the heart of scientific
method is the problem-hypothesis-test process. The purpose of all this activity
is knowledge, explanation, or understanding of phenomena under
Scientific method necessarily involves predictions. Predictions, to be useful in scientific methodology, most be subject to test empirically. The pertinent question to ask, therefore, is whether this is the case with regard to the General Theory of Evoluinn? Or with regard to the Special Theory of Evolution? In sum: Do any experiments designed to show "evolution" yield predictable consequences?
FOSSIL RECORD CONSIDERED
The fossil record is the prime source of so-called evidence for the General Theory of Evolution. The fossil record is interpreted as the record of what has existed, of what has happened. Many authorities agree the decisive "evidence" for the General Theory of Evolution must be based upon what they consider to be historical, that is, the fossil record.
The very essence of evolutionary thinking is slow change. Therefore, I would expect to find, I would predict, that investigators would find in the fossil record a gradual transition from the simplest to the most complex. This is the ma/or prediction from the general theory. In fact, if the General Theory of Evolution is to have any empirical hasis whatsoever, such a gradual transition in the fossil record must be found.
In other words, systematic or regular gaps must he absent from the fossil record, and transitional forms at some stage between all phyla, classes, orders, families, genera, and species roust be found. Such transitional fonns must be found if the General Theory of Evolution, defined already as amoeba-to-man, has occurred. Of course I must admit that some sporadic gaps might he expected in the fossil record. The geological record is not complete. However, there must be no regular or systematic gaps in the fossil record. Is this actually the case? How do predictions of the existence of transitional forms survive tests of observation?
EARLIEST INVERTEBRATES IN CAMBRIAN STRATA
The earliest or most ancient geological period in which indisputable fossils are found is known as the Cambrian Period according to the generally adopted geological time scale. Noteworthy is the fact that every major invertebrate form of life is found in Cambrian strata. In fact, billions and billions of fossils are found in Cambrian strata. Yet not a single indisputable fossil prior to the Cambrian Period has been found! Not a trace of any record of pre-Cambrian life can be found of indisputable ancestry to the well-identified Cambrian invertebrate forms. Paleontologist G. G. Simpson terms the absence of pre-Cambrian fossils "the major mystery of the history of life".
Further, no single-celled organism is considered simple anymore as a result of analysis through the electron microscope. Actually the fossil record contains remains of life which ranged from the less complex to the more complex, not from the simple to the complex!
If there is a "mystery" about the absence of evidence of ancestors of Cambrian life, there is still another even greater difficulty which arises when the prediction about the presence of transitional forms in the fossil record is tested. There is a systematic and universal absence of any transitional forms between all higher categories of life, that is, between all phyla, all classes, all orders, and almost all families. Just where the fossil record is needed the most, the evidence does not support the claims of proponents of gradual evolution.
Transitions would have required thousands of generations and millions of years, according to the General Theory of Evolution, and the fossil record should reveal an abundance of transitional forms. However such transitional forms cannot he found! Actually sudden appearance of different kinds of animals is indicated by the fossil record! In point of fact, transitional forms between the invertebrate phyla, which appear suddenly in the Cambrian Period strata, have never been found.
Furthermore, since vertebrates appear supposedly in the fossil record more recently than invertebrates and are more complex in organization, proponents of the General Theory of Evolution claim that vertebrates "evolved" from invertebrates. Then transitions from the invertebrate, either from animals which had hard outer shells and soft inner bodies or those which were simple soft-bodied forms, to vertebrates with a soft outer body and hard inner parts or skeleton would have been a tremendous transition, indeed, and should be abundantly documented in the fossil record, if such transitions actually took place. However, not a single such transitional form has ever been found.
The earliest vertebrate fish is found in the fossil record as 100% vertebrate. Amphibia appear more "recently" in the fossil record than fish. But the amphibia appear 100% as amphibians, and no one would confuse them with fish. Not a single transitional form has ever been found! And the same flat assertion may be made in summary of other vital transitions, such as amphibia to reptile, reptile to birds, and reptile to mammals.
For instance, not a single fossil in which forelimbs are "evolving" into wings, or scales into feathers, has ever been found. These and other necessary transitions, such as hind feet into perching feet, and heavy reptilian hones into light avian bones, must be found in transitional forms, if the General Theory of Evolution is to be presented as part of significant scientific knowledge.
No one has produced yet a single fossil with halfway wings or a fossil of an animal showing a transition half-way between the cold-blooded, sealed reptile and the warm blooded, feathered bird. If reptiles "evolved" into birds, thousands of such bizarre transitional forms should be found in the fossil record without difficulty. And not even the fossil Arehaeopterix can qualify as a transitional form, because it apparently had a bird-like skull, perching feet and fully developed wings with feathers. It was in the fullest sense a bird. It was no more a connecting form between reptile and bird than the bat is between mammal and bird. As Simpson has confirmed, every other fossil bird ever found was a completely bird-like form.
EVOLUTION PROPONENTS MIGHT ARGUE
Proponents of evolutionary theory in the general sense may want to argue at this point that successful predictions have been made with respect to the fossil record. Some might be inclined to argue that because
of the concept of evolution men have been aided in seeking fossil remains in-between those already located and identified. For instance the so-called horse "series" or different elephant specimens might be pointed to by evolutionary proponents as results of successful predictions regarding the fossil record. Because some specimens were located, then proponents of evolutionary theory are wont to claim that researchers were aided by evolutionary theory to go to specific rock layers and look for possible in-between specimens.
However, the horse "series" does not display evolution; the so-called horse series does not serve as an example of the General Theory of Evolution. I concede that men have thought they were using the General Theory of Evolution when they looked at specific rock layers for inbetween specimens of horse or horselike remains. But careful analysis of their work and reports brings out that the so-called series of horses from possible dog-size and five toes, on through supposed changes to three toes, and then large horses with one toe only of functional use, exemplify only variational change within one kind or form of complex organism, namely horses. The so-called five, three and present one-toed horses are all horses when the discussion is concluded. Therefore no evidence, either direct or circumstantial, has been presented for the General Theory of Evolution, which requires change from one form into another form.
The fossil record reveals (1) absence of types considered to be most primitive and ancestral to invertebrate life, (2) sudden appearance of the major taxonomic groups, and (3) an amazing absence of the many transitional forms required by the major prediction from the general theory.
No change from one animal form into another recognizable animal form has been
shown or reported. Only a constancy 0f form or kind has been
displayed if we accept
the so-called fossil evidence as reliable for horse ancestry of the
Thus evolutionary proponents have not made any successful predictions regarding
the fossil record, as far as the General Theory of Evolution is concerned.
DOCUMENTATION OF NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS
Clear documentation for this position is available in a recent publication in England. I refer to The Fossil
Record (A Symposium with Documentation), jointly sponsored by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontulogical Association of England, published in 1967 by the Geological Society of London (Burlington House, London, W 1). I am indebted to Professor Father Vincent J. O'Brien, science master at Castlenock College, County Dublin, Ireland and chairman of the Association of Irish Teachers of Science, for calling my attention to this thorough scientific work.
In this research volume, some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. Also these specialists prepared 71 highly instructive and authoritative charts which are included throughout the chapters of the honk. The conclusive generalization which may be drawn from these charts is as follows: Each type of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other types.
Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. For example, mammals appear in the so-called Eocene division and are as diverse then as researchers find them to he today. Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less of a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor. And the same is true of the sudden appearance of about 50 families of flowering plants in the socalled Cretaceous division of the accepted geological time scale.
Many paragraphs could be used to summarize the scientifically documented information about plants and animals in the fossil record. But I want to make the point that knowledge of the content of the above cited book published in 1967 is not recent. Specialists in the proper fields have possessed most of these facts for decades. And proponents of the General Theory of Evolution, who are familiar with the facts of paleontology, admit existence of gaps between all higher categories. They admit that this is an undeniable fact of the fossil record.
AUTHORITIES RECOGNIZE GAPS
Simpson has said, "It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly ...............
Gaps among known orders, classes, and phyla are systematic and almost always large." This is a very important statement by this specialist. Simpson said the gaps are systematic. But this is precisely what cannot be allowed if the General Theory of Evolution is to he supported empirically.
The careful critic is able to assert quite accurately that there is no empirical evidence in existence to support the General Theory of Evolution,
Prof. Alfred S. Rnmer of Harvard University has said, "Links are missing
just where we most fervently desire them and it is all too probable that many
links will continue to be missing," in the hook Genetics, Paleontology and
Evolution (p. 11). And the late Dr. R. B. Goldschmidt, a geneticist, spoke of
the paleontological record by writing, "When a new phylum, class or order
appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological
so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and
transitions." ("Evolution as Viewed by One Geneticist", American
Scientist, Vol. 40, 1952, p. 97)
These men are authorities in their fields and each has recognized that gaps appear in the fossil record, systematic gaps; links are missing, and groups of organisms appear suddenly and without apparent transitions. Thus with regard to the General Theory of Evolution, instead of a transition from lowest to highest, the fossil record reveals:
(1) absence of types considered to he most primitive and ancestral to invertebrate life.
(2) sudden appearance of the major taxonomic groups, and
(3) an amazing absence of the many transitional forms required by the major prediction from the general theory. The historical record, rather than supporting the General Theory of Evolution, is actually incompatible with the theory.
Is the General Theory of Evolution really part of scientific activity? Scientific activity involves facts which can be observed or demonstrated by means of trustworthy methods of discovery. There is no question about the discovery of remains of plants and animals which are identified as fossils. Thus the discovery of fossils and the organization of the remains based on similarities to living organisms is all part of solid scientific activity. But the core of scientific work is experimental repeatability which, as already noted, is synonymous with predictability and control.
Where are the demonstrated or observed experiments on relationship among or between fossils, or for that matter among or between fossils and living things? Such control of events is totally impossible. There are breeding gaps in addition to the already recognized gaps in the fossil groups. No predictions of breeding results are possible with fossils. And no predictable transitional forms according to the General Theory of Evolution may be found in the fossil record.
Thus the careful critic is able to assert quite accurately that there is no empirical evidence in existence to support the General Theory of Evolution, when it is understood to mean the amoebato-man thesis, or the change of one animal form into another animal form, or one plant form into another plant form.
Should evolution be required or optional in a science course? As far as scientific activity is concerned, the General Theory of Evolution should not be part of a science course. The General Theory of Evolution should at most be optional for a science course.
Is the General Theory of Evolution more properly a part of the subject area of Philosophy? Yes. The impact of the General Theory of Evolution on philosophy and other academic disciplines has been multiple in dimension and kind. Any treatment of such impact is really a study of Evolutionisin and goes beyond the scope of this paper.
SPECIAL THEORY OF EVOLUTION
A briefer examination of the Special Theory of Evolution is possible. Many reports of experimental studies in "evolution" are available. For example in 1955, W. H. Dowdeswell published a book on The Mechanism of Evolution, with the first Harper Torchbook edition appearing in 1960. That title should have been about mechanisms of micro-evolution, but more on this concept later. In 1960, W. S. Boyle published "Studies in Experimental Evolution" as part of the Faculty Honor Lecture Series of Utah State University.
And in 1966, Prof. E. B. Ford of Oxford University spoke at Michigan State University on the subject, "The Experimental Study of Evolution".
Are these studies designed to test predictions of the General Theory of Evolution or Special Theory of Evolution? Studies with violets, bacteria, butterflies, or moths can be shown to involve organisms which always remain fully recognizable as violets, bacteria, butterflies, or moths. These studies are not experimental studies within the frame of reference of the General Theory of Evolution, which requires change of one form into another form of organism.
All the experimental studies known have been tests of predictions or consequences of the Special Theory of Evolution, which stated that many living animals (or plants) can be observed, over the course of time, to undergo changes so that new varieties are formed. This is the type of "evolution" which can be demonstrated in the laboratory or in the field. Does "evolution" here mean "genetic variation"?
It would be quite correct to interpret tests of the Special Theory of Evolution as tests of micro-evolution. But in no way have laboratory scientists come close to demonstrating the type of change in living forms required by the General Theory of Evolution. It is true that proponents of the General Theory of Evolution have the hope, the desire, and the faith that the mechanism or mechanisms of micro-evolution provide understanding of the mode of surmised general evolutionary change. (See The Process of Evolution by Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm. New York: McGrawHill Book Company, 1963, pp. 308 through 312.)
But tests of the Special Theory of Evolution, or micro-evolution, are no more than studies of genetic variation. This was clearly admitted by Prof. Ford during his presentation. All of his data related to variations, primarily genetic, of organisms such as butterflies and moths, which he and his colleagues had studied over the past 40 years. At no time did Prof. Ford, or do any other published reports of so-called studies of experimental evolution, show any change of one animal form into another animal form, or one plant form into another plant form.
EQUIVOCATION OF TERMS REJECTED
The laboratory experimenter, or the field investigator for that matter, only studies genetic variation within limits. In other words, empirical scientists produce tests of predictions and consequences of the Special Theory of Evolution, or micro-evolution, and no more. In point of fact, unless someone forces an equivocation of the term "evolution" with "genetic variation", such experimentation is simply irrelevant (non sequitur) to the discussion of any rise of new forms of life out of old forms.
Should the Special Theory of Evolution be required or optional in a science course? The Special Theory of Evolution amounts to another expression of the concept of genetic variation, or micro-evolution. Since studies of genetic variation are excellent examples of the core of scientific activity, that is, controlled experimental tests of repeatability and predictability, then such studies should definitely be required as part of a science course.
The net effect of this brief attention to the Special Theory of Evolution has been a lesson in semantics. If by "evolution" One means to commit an with "genetic variation", then such a ing about discovery of observable and facts obtained through trustworthy me excellent scientific activity. But equivoca does not speak well for rigorous use of should be avoided. Thus I support studies variation in science courses for that purpose studies of genetic variation as excellent scientific activity. Such studies should be of reference to the General Theory of E thermore, there is absolutely no need for the Special Theory of Evolution and/or tion since to all intents and purposes involved are essentially the same as those studies of genetic variation.
PROPRIETY OF CRITICISMS OF EVOLUTION
Critics of theories of evolution have no the Special Theory of Evolution as such, or evolution, when one actually means genetic The fact of genetic variation, and the fact of animal and plant forms within limits is readily admitted. The problem is that critics of theories of evolution are puzzled as to why some scientists use the term "evolution when "genetic be used without equivocation, with greator rigor of meaning, and with actual physical referents.
Debate and criticism of organic evolution is focused upon the General Theory of Evolution. There is also much serious criticism of seemingly unrestrained enthusiastic extensions of the general the general theory to other disciplines, far removed from the field of biology.
It is proper in scientific endeavor to criicize theory, and empirical work as well. Criticism is the very essence of the scientific attitude. Most scientists will readily admit that theories and ideas of scientists are always open to re-evaluation. Doubt is always needed for the so-called self-correctiveness of scientific activity.
Ideas about the General Theory of Evolution...actually are speculations derived from the philosophy of naturalism extended far beyond the limits of testability, repeatability, and predictability
Propriety of criticisms of theories of been brought out by many scholars, among whom is W. R. Thompson, Fellow of the Royal Society of England, and former director of the Biological Institute of Control in Ottawa, Canada, who wrote:
As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw attention of the non-scientific to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public
by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science. (Introduction to The Origin of Species. New York: Dutton Everyman's Library Edition, No. 811, 1956, p. xxii)
AlsoW. R. Thompson has written in a recently republished book, Science and Common Sense (Magi Books, Inc., Albany, N. Y., 1965):
But as has been shown in previous chapters, the development of Science, as an autonomous discipline, seems to entail the rigorous elimination of philosophical notions (Yet) evolutionary speculation is (full)
of philosophical principles and suppositions. The concept of organic evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard if as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation. (p. 229)
And Errol Harris makes clear in his 1965 book on The Foundations of Metaphysics
in Science, that organic evolution is based upon the "argument
He uses eight pages to relate many examples of "coherently
that the evolutionary process must produce", which are in
to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Criticisms of the General Theory of Evolution are set in focus by attention given to "scientism" by Isidor Chein in his April, 1966 article in American Psychologist, Scientism can be defined as that belief that the only knowledge worthy of being called such is obtained through the scientific method. This is of course a prejudice in favor of naturalism, a particular form of philosophy. Chein wrote:
The most extreme expressions of scientism involve doctrinaire views on the nature of science and on proper rules of scientific conduct and expression. By strict application of some of these rules, a considerable array of sciences, from anatomy to zoology, would be ruled out of the domain of science because they are, in the main not experimental, not quantitative, not concerned with prediction, and/or not hypothetico-deductive in structure. (p. 337) (Emphasis added)
Chein continued, "A work like Darwin's Origin of
Species would similarly not be expected to make the grade since it promulgates
as a theory presuppositions that can only be applied on a post hoc basis and do
not serve the ends of prediction."
In the face of this analysis, what empirical scientist can seriously consider "origins" of life as an empirical scientist? What student of so-called historical geology can give serious thought to supposed empirical study of Paleozoic or Mesozoic divisions of accepted geological time scale? Certainly discussions of "origins" and so-called historical geology are to be considered qualitative, speculative imaginations of philosophically oriented men, rather than the type of scientific research work in which we have rightly become accustomed to putting our trust.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Criticisms have been formulated against theories of evolution in terms of the question asked by many Christian parents, "Should evolution be required or optional in a science course?" I conclude that the General Theory of Evolution should not be required in a science course because it is unrelated to any direct study of scientific activity. Of course, the General Theory of Evolution might be used as a prime example of philosophial speculation by believers in naturalism.
The Special Theory of Evolution should be required in a science course. However, expression of the Special Theory of Evolution and discussion around it might just as well be in terms of studies of genetic variation, which is all that proper scientific activity can demonstrate in the lahoraory or in the field.
Full use of the methods of experimental science is not applicable to the General Theory of Evolution at all. The fossil record does not support the claims of proponents of the General Theory of Evolution, There are many scientists today who attest to this condition, and many who have written on this point over the decades since 1859 when Darwin's book first appeared. Parents are quite properly asking, "Why haven't my children heard of and read these critics in their elementary, secondary, or college level studies?"
Experimental studies that are reported, and those that can be conducted properly within the frame of reference of empirical science, support only the Special Theory of Evolution, microevolution or genetic variation. There is absolutely no experimental evidence for any change of one animal form into another animal form, or for any change of one plant form into another plant form, as demanded according to the General Theory of Evolution.
The only evidence of change which can be classed properly as the result of scientific method is the evidence of genetic variation within limits of kinds of forms of animals, or within limits of kinds or forms of plants. A dog-kind, horse-kind, and man-kind exist; a moss-kind, fern-kind, and flowering plant-kind exist. There is absolutely no empirical, repeatable, reproducible, predictable evidence from breeding experiments for connections between these kinds, and no evidence in the prime historical source, the fossil record, for any actual connection in sequence of these kinds.
No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred. This conclusion may be expressed another way: The data of the so-called fossil "series", gene combinations and recombinations, hybridization, mutation, migration, isolation, distribution, and selection may be interpreted from the viewpoint of either the philosophy of gradual evolutionism or the philosophy of instantaneous creationism. Specific choice depends upon presuppositions of the interpreter.
The acceptance of interpretation of empirical data within the frame of reference of instantaneous creationism may be made as the least complex, and as one unemcumbered with the serious consequences of acceptance of the philosophy of evolutionism as a basis for interpretation. Ideas about the General Theory of Evolution, about the past, such as ideas about the "origin" of life, are not based upon empirical science, but actually are speculations derived from the philosophy of naturalism extended far beyond the limits of testability, repeatability, and predictability.