Although I accept evolution on a limited scale (for example, as an explanation of the different races of human beings), I don’t find the scientific evidence for naturalistic evolution as an explanation of all life on Earth compelling. I think there are theological and philosophical objections that can (and should) be raised against this theory, but I think that some of the best arguments against it come from within the field of science itself. Here’s a succinct expression of my two main scientific objections to neo-Darwinism.
1) The fossil record
Why are there so few transitional life forms in the fossil record? Darwin himself admitted that this was a problem, but he attributed it to imperfections in the fossil record, and thought that more transitional life forms would be discovered after his death. Here is one quote from The Origen of Species: “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” Another century and a half of digging up fossils, however, has not vindicated Darwin’s claims. On the contrary, at several stages the geological record points to the sudden appearance of already diverse, complicated life forms (e.g., the Cambrian explosion). In my opinion, theories such as punctuated equilibrium which attempt to explain the lack of sufficient numbers of transitional fossils raise more questions than they answer.
2) The problems of leaps
Purely natural processes cannot explain the origin of life itself, or the development of “irreducibly complex” systems such as the eye or the cell. Darwin thought the cell was relatively simple, but today we know that it is incredibly complex, needing all of its various components in order to function at all. If it loses any one of its components, the entire cell shuts down and has no survival value. How can such an intricate, inter-connected system come together gradually and by blind chance? How do you get from non-intelligence to intelligence by exclusively naturalistic forces? I think it takes a lot more blind faith to believe that it all happened by chance than to posit an Intelligent Designer.