Adam Poe
Please read carefully. And... take your time.
The foundation of modern science is built on evolution. Yet, evolution is one of those vague words that mean different ideas to different people. It actually has two meanings:
MICRO-EVOLUTION is the theory that organisms can adapt to changes in their surroundings and develop a LIMITED amount of diversity based on their environment. Variation within a species is possible, such as a Bird's beak getting larger or a moth's wings changing color, but it's limited in scope. Micro-evolution has a solid scientific basis, and no one disputes it's occurrence in nature.
MACRO-EVOLUTION is another ballgame altogether. Also called Darwinian evolution, this theory takes the proven idea of limited change over time and attempts to explain all questions concerning the origins of life in the same manner: Simple organisms branched out over billions of years to create complex organisms like you see inhabiting the world today.
Macro-evolution is driven by NATURAL SELECTION, a survival-of-the-fittest process that has no mind or purpose; organisms that adapt to their environment survive, and those that don't, become extinct. Natural selection causes such features as wings and eyes to develop over extended periods of time as a way for organisms to better adapt to their environments. Staunch evolutionist Richard Dawkins memorably called this evolutionary process "the blind watchmaker."
Although micro-evolution is a theory that evidence confirms, macro-evolution is FAR MORE SPECULATIVE. In fact, scientists have no more evidence today (and argue less) to support macro-evolution than Darwin did. To scientists who believe in a God as a designer and creator, the theory of evolution has NEVER successfully answered the basic questions about how life began or explained the mystery of the DNA code. They also point in recent discoveries as further evidence showing the need for a God as designer, or TRANSCEDENT CAUSAL AGENT (for those who lack faith in God). For example, in Darwin's day, scientists originally thought the cell was a simple structure, but advances in molecular biology over the past 30 years have shown how complex the cell is, making the likelihood of natural selection at the molecular level seemingly impossible.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." -Charles Darwin
Charles Darwin believed that the cell is a relatively simple structure that could've evolved through natural selection. But, as the quote above illustrates, Darwin himself saw holes in his theory should cells be proven to be too structurally complex to have evolved on their own. Due to technological advances over the past 30 years, scientists no longer have to speculate on the cell. They now have the ability to view and understand a cell's composition in the ways that were unheard of decades before.
With this newly discovered knowledge in tow, scientist Michael Behe writes in his book "Darwin's Black Box" that it's IMPOSSIBLE for cells to have evolved through a gradual process, because they're IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX. In other words, a core set of parts has to be present in a cell in order for it to function in the first place.
To explain his point, Behe uses the example of an ordinary mouse trap. Behe argues that a mouse trap is irreducibly complex, because all it's pieces have to be present and in working order for it to function. You can't just put a piece of wood out in the attic and catch a mouse or two, then add a spring to snatch a second, and then assemble the hammer for even more. This increment approach doesn't work.
Instead, all these pieces must be assembled together and functioning properly before the challenge of mouse catching can even begin. In the same way, cells and other living organisms are irreducibly complex, which seems incompatible with the survival-of-the-fittest theory and suggest strong evidence that cells were designed by a transcendent causal agent, or God.
The popular assumption is that the fossil record proves that simple creatures evolved to become complex ones. But, in reality, the fossil record doesn't show the proof of any transitional forms of species that Darwinian evolution requires. Fossils consistently show up as sudden explosions of species with little changes taking place after that in the fossil record.
Darwinian evolution is the required way to explain the origins of the world if you have a naturalistic worldview. It's a belief system.