The Fossil Record and The Origin of Man

Introduction

Each evening, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, we have begun our lesson with a passage of Scripture. That seems entirely appropriate in this kind of a setting. Most of the time when I do this lecture, I do it in a neutral setting, like a college classroom or an auditorium setting, somewhere in a neutral setting, not a church building. In those kinds of situations, I use very little, if any, Bible at all, because the appeal is to those who don’t even believe the Bible is the Word of God. And frankly, people are more likely to come to a neutral setting for a lecture like that than they are to a church building. So it’s a great opportunity. But here I think it’s fitting for us to begin with this passage tonight, chapter 11, verse 1.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. I interrupt the quotation there to say again this evening. Whatever position you take about origins, how the world, the universe, or life on earth, how it came about, whatever position you take on that will be a position of faith. And the reason for that is the definition in verse one. It’s the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. No human being was in a position to observe how this universe got here.

Or how the first living things got here, or how human beings got here. Therefore, we will take evidence from the modern world and we will deduce or induce backwards in time and come up with our best explanation, and we’ll fill in the gaps of our knowledge by faith. That’s the way it is. And don’t let anyone take the position with you that you folks are religious and yours is a position of faith, mine is a position of science. That’s not the contrast. The contrast is which position of faith is better supported by the evidence. And by the way, we all have the same evidence. Now look at verse 6. But without faith, it is impossible to please him. For he who comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him.

Now I want you to think about that with me for just a moment. That says in order to please God, we must believe that he is.

It says we must believe that he is. Now that faith throughout the scripture is supposed to be a faith that rests on evidence. But ladies and gentlemen, when you get through with the evidence, you’re going to have to believe there’s a God. You’re not going to know it with absolute certainty. Whether you’re looking at this universe or whether you’re looking at this book. He who comes to God must believe that he is. It’s a matter of faith, ladies and gentlemen. And I’m convinced God has put it that way. Because that’s what he wants from us. Now, has he led us to the point of faith? Absolutely. And in fact, he says in Romans 1, there’s no excuse for missing it. But it’s still a position of faith.

And then he wants us to believe that those who diligently seek him will be rewarded by him. We hope you’re a seeker this evening. And if you’re here and you’re not a believer, or you’re listening to these tapes, and you’re not a believer in God, or you have serious doubts or questions whether there is a God, I’m thankful that you’re at least open-minded enough to listen. And I hope you will be challenged in your thinking. So that’s our introduction tonight, and with that, I close the Bible and put it away. Because, as you know, in this series since Monday evening, we’ve not been using the Bible as the source of our information. We’ve been using the evidence of the natural world, which the Bible itself says is an avenue to seek God and to find him.

1. Indirect Evidence Based on the Fossil Record

So, tonight, our third in a series of lectures, which could well be 50 lectures, will focus in on the fossil record. And the reason I chose that for this evening is because probably this particular topic is as familiar to you as any in terms of the avenues of evidence. Though I doubt you know a whole lot about it. You’ve all heard that they’re fossils, and that they are supportive of one view or the other. So that’s why I’ve chosen this tonight. And it is an extremely abbreviated treatment of this subject, but hopefully we’ll get the major points across. Here’s another quote from that article by Stephen J. Gould I mentioned on Monday evening. You remember the first line of evidence that he gave was small scale changes, and we dealt with that Monday evening, so go back and listen to the tape.

His second great class of evidence, which he says support him in his view that evolution is a fact. And what he means by that, ladies and gentlemen, is that there is a single tree of life and that all living things come from a common ancestry millions of years ago, single-celled organisms which evolved into all living things over a period of millions of years. He believes that picture is a fact based on three great classes of evidence that he identifies. His second great class, you see on the screen, we have the direct evidence for large-scale changes based on sequences in the fossil record. And as we did last time, I want to correct Dr. Gould’s sentence again. He says we have the direct evidence for large-scale changes based on sequences in the fossil record.

I want to correct that. We do not see changes in the fossil record. The fossil record produces fossils. As you dig up from one part of the ground up through the ground, maybe up from the top down, you dig them down, you see different kinds of fossils, and maybe this kind of fossil is different from that one, but you don’t see any changes going on. So what this should say is we have the indirect evidence for large-scale changes based on sequences in the fossil record. That is not direct evidence. And I’m sorry he stated it that way. It is indirect evidence to presume that because you see one kind of fossil here and another kind of fossil there, that over time changes took place for this one evolved into that one.

That’s an assumption. That’s not a direct observation. So I hope you got that. But he thinks the fossil record is a great class of evidence to support the evolutionary views. The nature of this evidence, he said, is often misunderstood by non-professionals who view evolution as a simple ladder of progress and therefore expect a linear array of missing links. Here’s one, you got a missing link here, a missing link there, and missing link there, and here’s another one. He said that’s the way we non-professionals think. Then he goes on to say the way it really is in the fossil record is you have a bunch of little bushes. Here’s a little bush, here’s a little bush, here’s a little bush, and you have to connect them up.

And in connecting them, you get the evidence of the fossil record. Well, we’re going to have a whole lot more to say about that. I have two quotes here that are very interesting, both of them by evolutionists. This one says the most important evidence for the theory of evolution is that obtained from the study of paleontology. Paleontology, the study of fossils, the study of old things. Though the study of other branches of zoology and such as comparative anatomy and embryology might lead one to suspect that animals are interrelated. It was the discovery of various fossils and their correct placing in relative strata and age that provided the main factual basis for the modern view of evolution. Now I forgot my pointer here, so let me get it.

I want you to notice something. It was the discovery of various fossils and their correct placing in relative strata and age. Now that’s an interesting statement. Did you catch that? There’s fossils, and then there’s the correct placing of them in relative strata and age. What that says to you, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely the situation. There is no one place on earth where you find all the fossils just lined up neatly. And here they are. You have to put things together. And that in itself forms an inference, doesn’t it? Well, this author, G. A. Kirkt, in his book Implications of Evolution, says the most important evidence we have are the fossils. Somebody else has said it’s the only hard evidence. A little play on words there.

Did you catch it? Fossils are hard. Okay, got it. Here’s another quote. This is by Stan Weinberg in his book Reviews of 31 Creationist Books. Fossils do not provide the best supportive evidence for evolution. The fields of biochemical genetics, comparative anatomy, compared to biochemistry, embry and biology, and biogeography provide much stronger evidence. And folks, I wish we had time because I have a lecture on each one of these. And they do not provide strong evidence for the theory of evolution. But Dr. Weinberg says they do. And the fossil record is really not as good. Dr. Kirk had said it’s the best we’ve got. So it depends on who you read. I hope to show you this evening that the fossil record provides major, major difficulties for the theory of evolution.

2. What Is a Fossil?

It also provides some difficulties for the theory of creation. Now, let’s be honest. And I’ll tell you right up front, there’s some things about the fossil record I have a difficult time explaining from a creationist standpoint. But not nearly as much as they do, at least in my opinion. So let’s talk about it a little bit. What is a fossil? We’ve been conducting this thing like a class, so those of you that haven’t been here, don’t be shaken up if I ask you questions and people actually answer. This is a lecture, not a sermon. So what’s a fossil? Here’s an example of one. That’s a dinortus brachiopod. You can find those in lots of places. And this thing is a sh looks like a shell, doesn’t it?

But it’s hard as a rock. It is a rock. So what is a fossil? There’s one, if you open up that dinortus brachiopod, that’s what it looks like. But every bit of that’s hard as a rock. So, what’s a fossil? Well, this I’m going to show you a quote here from a man by the name of Colin Patterson. Colin Patterson is a curator for the British Museum of Natural History. And he’s another one of those feisty guys that doesn’t mind saying things that are a little bit out of the mainstream. And that maybe even are a little bit anti-evolutionary sometimes. Here’s what he said about a fossil. What’s a fossil? A fossil is a mess on a rock. I like that. It’s a mess on a rock.

That’s a pretty good definition. That’s one you’ll probably remember. I’m going to give you another one that’s a little more detailed, but that’s the one you’ll probably remember. What’s a fossil? You notice this is from that book, Pandas and People, that I mentioned to you Monday night. That’s a good little book. Every one of you parents ought to have that for your children of pandas and people. And in that book, here’s the definition. Fossils are rough rock replicas of plants or animals or their parts, especially their skeletons, and they provide us a link with the past. The morphology of an animal, that is its shape, including its skeleton, is an elaboration of the information content in its DNA, and hence fossils are capsules of information from past life forms.

3. What Would You Expect to Find in the Fossil Record?

That’s a good definition. Capsules of information from past life forms. They’re leftovers from things that were once living. That were fortunate enough, or you might say unfortunate enough to get trapped somewhere where they got turned into rock. So that’s fossils. What would you expect to find in the fossil record if the general theory of evolution were correct? Let’s let Darwin answer this question. The quote that I’m going to give you comes straight from this book, Origin of the Species. And here’s what Darwin said. The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Now I want to stop there just a minute. Because if you weren’t here Monday night, you might not understand why that has to be the case if you believe in Darwinism.

See, Darwin believed that single-celled organisms eventually evolved over long periods of time into us and elephants and monkeys and every other kind of living thing. By natural means over millions of years. Now listen to me carefully. That had to happen by small steps. Gradually. Imagine how many small steps there need to be between a single-celled organism and an elephant. There ought to be millions of intermediates in the fossil record. That’s what Darwin said. I didn’t say that. He said that. And I agree with him, if his theory is true. Then he says, why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain. And this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory, so says Darwin in his own book.

One thing I appreciate about Darwin is most of this book is a critique of his own theory. And that’s an honest man. He critiques it, and then he goes and answers the critique. So, I present to you the gravest and most obvious objection to Darwin’s theory, the fossil record. That’s what we’re going to talk about tonight. I hope by the time I get finished, you’ll see why he said that. Now, he said that in 1859. That’s 150 years ago almost. Is the situation any better now than it was then? That’s the question we’ll have to ask. The reason he gave was that there had been an incomplete search. In other words, we hadn’t found enough fossils yet. People, for the last 150 years, folks have been searching for fossils all over the world to try to substantiate Darwin’s theory.

And I can tell you that after having found millions of fossils that are stored in museums all over this world, the situation is worse now than it was in Darwin’s day. For the evolutionary theory.

I do not believe 150 years later we can still say that.

4. Feature Number One: There Are Lots of Fossils

Wouldn’t that be what you’d expect? If reptiles evolved into birds, wouldn’t you expect some kind of a graded series like that? Showing it? Makes great sense to me. On the other hand, what if creation is what took place? What should the fossil record look like? It should show sudden appearance of complex forms with no fossil evidence of lower animals developing into new and complex forms. Sudden appearance of complex forms. That’s what you’d expect. So what do you see in the fossil record? I’m going to give you four notable features. Feature number one, there are lots of fossils. Did you know that people who believed in the Bible used to question whether there were such things as fossils? Did you know I have met some people in our 21st century who still don’t believe there’s such things as fossils?

Folks, if you argue with facts, you’re going to lose every time. There are fossils all over the place. Don’t argue with that. And they are filled with information about the past. That’s a fact. This column that you see in every major textbook on geology or biology or lots of other subjects is supposed to be an organization of the fossil record and of the layers in the earth. You see over here, from the Cambrian up through the Ordoviciary and right on up to the Quaternary, modern times, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven major periods of geologic history are lined up on this chart. Now, what an evolutionist will tell you is this that generally speaking, at the bottom of this column, you will find less complex fossils.

And as you go up the column toward the modern times, you find more and more complicated fossils. That’s what Mr. Gould was talking about. He said, you see the evidence for large scale changes based on sequences in the fossil record. I believe we have to admit that it’s generally a fact, not 100%, but generally a fact, that the lower you dig in the earth, the deeper you go, the less complex the fossils are, generally speaking. The evolutionist says with that, therefore, you see, first life evolved, the simplest forms, and then over time the other forms evolved from those and left fossils. That’s their interpretation. Okay, I have some things to say about that. First of all, this geologic column does not exist anywhere on earth. It’s in books.

Why do I say that? Because, as Von Ingen and Castor said in their book, if a power were to be made by using each geologic age, it would be at least 100 miles high. If you took each of those ages and stacked them on top of each other with the largest known thickness of that age, you’d get a hundred mile column. Do you think, ladies and gentlemen, there’s any place on earth that has a 100 mile column stacked up on top of itself with all these neat layers there? Absolutely not. There’s nowhere on earth that it has that. The Grand Canyon, which is one of our deepest canyons on Earth, is one mile and a half deep. Many of you have been to the Grand Canyon?

Okay. You know, don’t you, that you can look at the side of that canyon, you can see lots of layers. And in those layers you can find fossils, in some of them, anyway. That’s a fact, ladies and gentlemen. But look, if the geologic column is a hundred miles high and the Grand Canyon’s only a mile and a half, that means we’re missing 98.5% of it. And the fact is, there is no one place on Earth that has all the geologic column in it. It has to be put together. Data from the continents and ocean basins show that the ten systems are poorly represented on a global scale. Approximately 70% of the Earth’s surface area on land and undersea has seven or more of the strata misses systems missing.

And an estimated 99.6% has at least one missing system. And in the ones where they’re all present, there’s parts of them missing. But there’s hardly any place on earth where that’s the case. So what do I say about this column? This column is not a fact, it’s an interpretation of facts. That’s important. Make a difference between what’s a fact and what’s an interpretation of facts. Hundreds of locations on earth are known that do not match the order of this column. Things are not in the right order. Now, sometimes you can see evidence that one part was thrust over the other part by some massive movement of the earth, but there are lots of places where that’s not the case.

5. The Early Origin of the Phyla

Strato systems are believed in some places to be inverted, repeated, or inserted where they don’t belong, overturning and overthrust, faulting or landsliding are frequently maintained as disrupting the order. In some locations, such structural changes can be supported by the evidence, while elsewhere, physical evidence of disruption may be lacking. So I’m just telling you, there are places on earth where that order isn’t there. It’s different. And it doesn’t look like the things have been flipped. Secondly, what’s the second feature of the fossil record? The early origin of the phyla. Let me try to show this to you. Let’s do this first. Let’s go to the board. Suppose evolution were true. What would you expect in the fossil record? Here’s present time, and here’s the deepest layers of the earth.

If evolution were true, and the phyla, ladies and gentlemen, are the classification of large groups of creatures, living creatures. How many phyla would you expect to find down at the bottom if evolution were true? Well, at the very bottom, zero, right? And then how many you think you’d find the next layers up? Maybe one. Because surely they can’t all evolve at the same time, right? So you expect to find maybe one of the phyla here, and then maybe it’ll branch out into two others, and then maybe this one will branch out, and this one will branch out, and then sow on up the tree. Isn’t that what you expect if evolution’s true? You start from a very small number of organisms that are evolved somehow from the non living.

We talked about that last night if you weren’t here. And then from that comes other, a little more complicated, and then on out like that. Isn’t that what you’d expect? Is that what we see in the fossil record? Let’s see. No, here’s what you see, ladies and gentlemen. Here’s the Cambrian layer. Remember I said that lowest layer? You see these dotted lines? Each of those dotted lines represents a phylum. And here’s what happens in the fossil record. Practically every single phylum appears, boom, in the fossil record in the Cambrian layer. Now, when I say it that way, that makes you think it was just instantaneous. Now, the geologists would say it was over a period of.