Could Modern Science Be

Killing Darwin’s Evolution? 

In 1859, Charles Darwin

introduced two major ideas:

  1. All life came from a single common ancestor.

  2. Over time, life evolved through random, natural processes—without any kind of guidance.

These ideas quickly became widely accepted in science, as it naturally explained away God. 

But a lot…and I mean a LOT... has changed since Darwin’s time. 

While small-scale changes in species (microevolution) are well-supported, the bigger claims—like the idea that all life came from one ancestor (macroevolution)—deserves much more scrutiny in the 21st-century.

Advances in Biochemistry 

“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.”

“Natural selection” sounds like nature is actively choosing the best traits to pass on—like it has a mind of its own. But in reality, the changes that feed into natural selection come from random mutations—basically, copying errors in DNA. And while scientists often say that common descent (the idea that different species came from the same ancestor) explains similarities between animals, it doesn’t answer two big questions:

  1. How did the ancestor get those traits in the first place?

  2. How did the species become so different over time?

Darwin didn’t know about DNA or the molecular details of life—those were discovered long after his time. He guessed, using the best science available in the 1800s, that random variation could build new features. But in the 21st century,  we’ve actually been able to study life at the molecular level, and the evidence raises some problems for Darwin’s theory.

  • Most mutations are not helpful. They’re usually useless, harmful, or even fatal to the organism. In rare cases, a mutation can help survival, but often by damaging something rather than creating something new. This means evolution as we observe it often reduces genetic information instead of adding brand-new complex features.

  • Mutations are extremely rare. On average, only 1 in every 10 million cell divisions causes a mutation. Even if a mutation is helpful and passed to the next generation, it’s likely to disappear over time. By the 100th generation, it will probably be lost.

Spreading a helpful gene takes a long time. For one beneficial mutation to spread to an entire population could take 20,000 generations, which is about 400,000 years.

Now, here’s the kicker:

If humans evolved from a 3-million-year-old ancestor like Lucy..


There's only been time for about 7 beneficial genes to spread through the population. That’s nowhere near enough to explain the massive differences between apes and humans—especially when the math says mutations tend to cause loss of complexity, not gain.

So based on modern science, it’s hard to see how purely random mutations and natural selection could build the level of complexity we see in life today.

Additionally, we now know that even the simplest cell is like a miniature factory, with parts that all depend on each other to work. Biochemist Michael Behe uses a mouse trap to describe this: 

A mousetrap has several parts:

  • A base

  • A spring

  • A holding bar

  • A hammer (the part that snaps)

  • A catch

If you take away any one of these parts, the mousetrap doesn’t just work less well—it doesn’t work at all. It’s useless until all the parts are in place and working together. 

Thus, if you remove any part of an Irreducible complex system needed to support life, the whole thing stops functioning. That means it’s hard to see how these systems could be built step-by-step by evolution, because the incomplete “half-built” versions wouldn’t work and therefore wouldn’t be useful for survival.

Now.. advances in DNA makes things worse for Darwin… 

Scientists have learned that DNA works like a written code—kind of like a sentence or computer program. Just as the order of letters matters in a sentence, the specific order of DNA bases matters for the cell to function. If the letters are scrambled, the “instructions” break.

This means it’s incredibly unlikely for random mutations (accidental changes in DNA) to produce a brand-new, working DNA sequence.

To explain, Stephen Meyer uses a bike lock analogy:

A simple 4-dial bike lock has 10,000 combinations, but only 1 works.

A thief could eventually crack it, but it would take time.

A more complex 10-dial lock has 10 billion combinations—

now it’s nearly impossible for a thief to guess the right one in a lifetime.

DNA is much, much more complex than that. To get a short functional protein (just 150 amino acids long), there are about:

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
(non-functional) arrangements of amino acids.

That’s a 77-dial lock, each dial having 10 numbers—

and you’d have to guess the one correct combination to get a working protein.

Now, here’s the big kicker:

Meyer says that in all of Earth’s 3.85 billion years of life, only about 10^40 individual organisms have ever existed. That sounds like a lot, but when you compare it to the chances needed to randomly create a new working gene or protein, it’s just a tiny fraction—like one part in ten trillion trillion trillion. This means that random mutations probably wouldn’t be enough to make even a single new useful gene or protein in the entire history of life.

Meyer’s point? Even with all the time life has existed, the math says a random mutation is extremely unlikely to create even one brand-new working gene or protein.

Now moving onto Darwin’s second doubt…

The Cambrian Explosion

Again Darwin admitted: 

“To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed early years prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer... the case at present must remain inexplicable, and maybe truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” 

Darwin expected that one day we’d find gradual changes in the fossil record that proved life slowly becoming more complex. 

But what scientists actually found was a sudden burst of complex life in the Cambrian period, about 600 million years ago. 

Almost all major animal groups appear suddenly in this layer of rock—with no clear ancestors before them. 

Why this is a problem:

  • No gradual build-up in fossil record: Animals like trilobites and opabinia (with five eyes and a complex nervous system) appear fully formed. There’s no trail of simpler ancestors in older rock layers.

  • Soft-bodied fossils have been found: Some scientists argue these “missing ancestors” didn’t fossilize well. But soft-bodied fossils have been found from that time—and still no pre Cambrian explosion ancestors have been found.

  • Some species haven’t changed at all: Creatures like flies, beetles, and even giraffes look basically the same now as they did millions of years ago. This doesn’t match what evolution predicts.

Bottom line: The fossil record is now sufficiently complete, and the continued absence of transitional forms can no longer be attributed to a lack of discovery. Instead of a gradual tree of life, the fossil record looks more like a sudden burst of fully formed animals.

Advances in Cosmology and Geology

Charles Darwin said himself: 

“Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favour of a living being developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be proved some day in accordance with the law of continuity”

Darwin admitted he didn’t know how life first began. He just assumed it would be proved one day. He hypothesized that life may have started in a warm pond filled with simple molecules, which somehow came together to form the first living cell. After billions and billions and billions of years, that one organism evolved into all living things. 

At the time, this sounded like a reasonable natural explanation. But today’s science shows that this scenario is extremely unlikely.

How so?
To form life, very specific building blocks—like amino acids, sugars, and DNA—must be present in the right forms, in the right amounts, and under very stable conditions. Scientific advances in cosmology and geology now suggest that Darwin's naturalistic theory for the origin of life is not probable, as natural processes under early Earth's conditions would not have allowed for the assembly of living organisms from inorganic material. For example: 

There was an Absence of Prebiotic Molecules: Early Earth lacked the necessary building block molecules for life. Even trace amounts of oxygen would have prevented their formation, while an oxygen-free environment would have led to their destruction by ultraviolet (UV) radiation.

Early Earth was Missing Critical Amino Acids and Phosphorus: Essential amino acids like alanine, arginine, tryptophan, and ribose are not found outside of living organisms or their decay products, making their presence before life's origin improbable. Similarly, phosphorus, crucial for DNA and RNA, is primarily produced by living organisms, with no natural environmental process capable of generating sufficient quantities.

There was Limited Extraterrestrial Contribution: While some meteorites and comets contain trace amounts of certain amino acids, critical ones like lysine and arginine are absent. The vast carbon-based molecules in the Milky Way do not include essential building blocks like amino acids, nucleobases, sugars, DNA, and RNA. Even if dense clouds could produce simple amino acids, the quantities would be too low and their decay too rapid to support life's origin.

Early Earth’s Environment was Hostile: Carl Sagan's proposed billion-year self-assembly period for life's origin is deemed impossible due to the Sun's early, intense ionizing radiation (up to 50 times stronger) and numerous sterilization events caused by significant impacts. These impacts would have melted the surface, eliminating water and potential prebiotic molecules, requiring thousands of years for water to recondense. This drastically reduces the potential time window for life's origin from 1.07 billion years to as little as 100 million years, or even less than 10 million years, given the gap between stable liquid water and the appearance of stable life.

So, What’s Next?  I think we listen to Darwin’s ominous warning 

“False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science...”

– Charles Darwin

We cannot keep accepting Evolution as a plausible explanation. It’s prohibiting our understanding of science. 

Darwin didn’t know about DNA, cells, or even the Big Bang. He worked with the best information and tools available in his time. But just like in the past when people believed bats navigated by touch, or that for 1,500 years people thought the heart made new blood to pump out, Darwin’s theory is starting to show its age. As science has advanced, we’ve discovered new facts that don’t quite fit with what he proposed, so it’s clear that his ideas need to be updated or replaced with better explanations.

So why does evolution still dominate science? Because it offers a worldview without a need for a creator—and for many, that’s more comfortable than the alternative.