In chapter thirteen, Origins, Design, and Darwinism, Groothuis makes two arguments: (1) Belief in Darwinism as a comprehensive explanation for the biosphere has become a deterrent to Christian faith; thus, a cogent refutation is in order (2) Darwinism suffers from fatal flaws both logically and evidentially.
Groothuis lists a variety of thinkers who have argued against Darwinism without appealing to any religious sources.
Origins and the Bible
There are basic views within broad evangelicalism on the relationship of the Bible and science.
First, is theistic evolution where God used Darwinism. The first human couple were not literal. The fall was not literal but a failure of the first evolved humans to meet God’s conditions for flourishing. C. S. Lewis took pains to explain a nonliteral fall in evolutionary terms in The Problem on Pain. Groothuis rejects Theistic evolution. God invested in and directed the natural order in creation. The first couple was literal according to Matthew 19:4-6; Romans 5:12-21; 2 Corinthians 11:3).
Second, is scientific creationism, championed by prolific writer Henry Morris (1918-2006) and Duane Gish. These scientists insisted on six twenty-four-hour days of creation, which Groothuis dismisses because it conflicts with “the book of nature” in Psalm 19:1-6 which Groothuis conveniently equates with modern science which presents with overwhelming evidence that the universe is 13-15 billion years old.
Third, is the progressive creationism or day-age creationism. God created species which evolved. After considerable time, he created man who later fell into sin. This is Groothuis' view.
Basic Flaws of Darwinism
Groothuis notes that opponents of Darwinism are dismissed as ignoramuses. Proponents of Darwinism believe that they need not engage in rigorous argument. Just as a side note, this is the attitude of Groothuis toward six twenty-four-hour days of creation. He does not seriously engage in rigorous arguments in answering their arguments. He dismisses them as unworthy of argumentation. Groothuis lists reputable scientists who have renounced Darwinism.
Philosophical Commitment to Materialism
The advocates of Darwinism refuse to consider any contrary evidence outside materialism which violates the mandate of science: The mandate of science is to follow the evidence wherever it leads and then to select the best hypothesis for any given field of study. Methodological naturalism (Darwinism) betrays science itself. Richared Lewontin, an eminent bIologist and defender of Darwinism said “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” (Visions of Order: The Cultural Crisis of Our Time, pp. 139-140).
Icons of Evolution
Jonathan Wells, who earned a Ph.D. in embryology from the University of California, Berkeley, argues that the support for Darwinism relies heavily on several deceptive “icons.” These are taken-for-granted ideas put in pictorial form that often keep people from thinking critically about Darwinism. Groothuis describes as myth what Darwinists claim as “evolution in action.” Myths debunked by facts are the color of moths, the finch beak variations, Haekel’s fraudulent embryos, and Darwin’s tree of life.
What About Transitional Forms?
The fossil record does not reveal transitional forms necessary for macroevolution to have happened. Darwinists have two responses. First, evolutionists respond by saying the transitional forms were short lived and did not have time to fossilize. If macroevolution takes hundreds of millions of years how could the transitional forms be short lived.
Second, evolutionists say that transitional forms suddenly burst on the scene. But this explanation violates Darwinian orthodoxy which states that evolutionary changes are slow and incremental.
Evolutionist contend that Archaeopteryx is the missing link between reptiles and birds. Yet, recent discoveries indicate that bona fide bird fossils have been found that existed in the same fossil period as Archaeopteryx.
Human evolution: Do we have a common ancestor? In this section, Groothuis documents that all attempts to find the missing link between prehumen creatures to humanity have been fraudulent such as The Piltdown Man and as recent as the 2009 “Ida” fossil.
Homology: Darwinain or desgned? Homology means that similar structures can perform different functions in different organisms. Darwinists insist that the similarities in body structure between different species of life seal the deal for Darwinsim, since it indicates a common developmental lineage. The pattern of bones in a porpoise’s flipper is similar to that of a bat’s wing, although each is used for a very different function. This theory is not supported by the facts. As Denton points out, various organs and structures taken to be homologous cannot be traced back to homologous cells or regions in the earliest stages of embryogenesis. In other words, homologous structures are arrived at by different routes.
Vestigial organs and systems. Supposedly the human body contains organs or structural remnants inherited from our animal predecessors that now serve no purpose. For example, junk DNA, or aspects of DNA that seem to some to be vestigial because they contain no genetic information and so have no present purpose. But nonfunctional DNA serves very important purposes in the regulation of gene activity. Richard Dawkins goads the creationists by citing junk DNA and asking them why a Designer would produce it. “Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculation on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA. But Dawkins had it wrong.