The 1995 edition of The World Book Encyclopedia defined evolution as “a process of change over a long period.”[1]  Coyne admits that this definition in no way encompasses the entire meaning of the word.  He explained that even though it is commonly thought of in terms of biological change it is also used in other fields of science, such as astronomy and anthropology. 

          Evolution is indeed a loaded word.  Oftentimes, textbooks, encyclopedias, television shows, and scientific journals will equivocate when speaking about evolutionary theories.  When providing evidence for the theory, the evolutionist will point to an example of microevolution[2] and then lead the reader, listener, or viewer to believe that this change can be extrapolated to explain macroevolution.[3]  Coyne repeatedly used this tactic[4] in the article.

          The article is divided into seven sections entitled: Main Ideas of Evolutionary Theory; Causes of Evolutionary Change; Evolution of New Species; Evidence of Evolution; History of the Theory of Evolution; Acceptance of Evolution; and Evolution and Religion.  A great deal of attention must be focused on the section dealing with the evidence of evolution.  However, a few of Coyne’s errors in other sections must be dealt with first.

          Coyne often misrepresents the creationist viewpoint in an effort to add support for the evolutionary view.  For example, he states, that the Biblical account of creation “which states that all forms of life were created essentially as they exist today.”[5]  The Bible teaches that God made specific kinds of animals, such as the dog and cat kind, which were the ancestors of the various types of creatures now in existence.  Creationists do not deny that microevolution occurs and can even lead to speciation.[6]  Coyne also implies that the only reason that people reject evolution is due to their religious beliefs.  He fails to mention that a growing number of scientists completely reject the evolutionary theory.[7]  The growth of the Intelligent Design Movement in recent years provides excellent proof for this trend.  These people reject evolution because the evidence for it is severely lacking and actually points to an intelligent designer.

          Coyne also equivocates when describing natural selection, which creationists accept as a scientific fact.  As an example of natural selection he cites the prickly pear cactus on the Galapagos Islands.  These particular cacti have the genetic potential for growing to different heights with either soft or hard spines.  On the islands where the famous Galapagos tortoises exist, there are mostly taller cacti with hard spines.  On the turtle-less islands, the cacti are mostly short with soft spines.  Coyne would have his readers believe that this is a classic example of evolution.  He states, “[the] tall, tough-spined prickly pears have evolved from their short, short-spined ancestors.”[8]  While this is certainly a case of microevolution, it provides no support for macroevolution.  The plants involved in the observations are both prickly pear cacti.  It did not evolve into a different species or kind of plant.  Furthermore, this is exactly what one would expect to find on the islands with the tortoises since the tortoises only eat the shorter, short-spined cacti.  This leaves only the taller cacti to reproduce.  Over a period of time, the vast majority of cacti on the island will be the taller, hard-spined variety.  It is certainly a case of natural selection but provides no support for molecules-to-man evolution as proposed in the article. 

          The section on the evidence for evolution is divided into six lines of ‘proof’ for the evolutionary theory: the fossil record, geographic distribution of species, embryology, vestigial organs, direct observation of evolution, and artificial selection.  This is supposedly a “tremendous amount of evidence documenting the occurrence of evolution.”[9]

          The fossil record allegedly provides “some of the strongest evidence for evolution.”[10]  According to Coyne, the age of these fossils are known by “radiocarbon dating and other methods of dating.”[11]  This statement is either intentionally deceptive or an example of Coyne’s naïveté.  A past president of the British Geological Association, Derek Ager, stated “Apart from very ‘modern’ examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.”[12]  Actually, in a classic case of circular reasoning, evolutionists claim that the geologic column dates the fossils and the fossils date the rock layers of the geologic column.  Or as J. E. O’Rourke clearly stated:

The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately.  Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.[13]

          The World Book article leads the reader to believe that all is well with the fossil evidence for evolution.  It is claimed that the fossil record “shows a progression from the earliest types of one-celled life...to the many simple and complex organisms living today.”[14]  Even though there are countless exceptions to this so-called progression found in the rock layers, this evidence would also support the biblical account of a global flood.  The marine animals would be buried first, followed by amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds.  This is precisely what one would expect to find if there was a global flood.

          Coyne also uses the classic examples of the evolution of the horse and archaeopteryx to support his claims.  These “icons of evolution”[15] have been discredited for decades, even though many evolutionists cling to them because they have not found any better evidence.   Regarding archaeopteryx, Alan Feduccia, a leading ornithologist from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill stated “It is a bird, a perching bird, and no amount of paleobabble will change that.”[16] 

          The second line of evidence cited by Coyne is the geographic distribution of species.  This phrase refers to the fact that creatures that dwell on islands are more closely related to the land nearer to the island than land that is farther away.  The Galapagos Islands are again cited as evidence since they contain no native amphibians or mammals, since these creatures cannot easily migrate.  These islands are home to birds, such as Darwin’s famous finches, and plants that are similar to the neighboring country of Ecuador.  Since these finches have migrated to the islands, they have “evolved” into several different species of finches.  Once again, Coyne simply gives an example of macroevolution.  The birds started out as finches and they are finches today.  In addition, there is nothing in this point that contradicts the creationist position, with the exception of the implied vast ages needed for this speciation to occur.

          Embryology is the next line of evidence cite by Coyne to support evolution.  Many evolutionists promote a theory called “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”  This is a technical way of stating their belief that while in the developmental stages in the womb, each creature develops according to its evolutionary stages.  Mammalian embryos allegedly go through a fish-like stage, followed by the amphibian and reptilian stages before finally developing into a mammal. 

This theory can be traced back to Ernst Haeckel, a German embryologist who sought to find support for Darwin’s theory of evolution.  Haeckel came up with a set of drawings of several creatures in the embryonic state.  His sketches demonstrated that each of these creatures looked very similar at corresponding levels of development.  However, Haeckel faked the drawings.  He confessed to drawing them from memory and was convicted of fraud by his own university.[17]  Sadly, these pictures are still used as evidence for evolution even though they have repeatedly been demonstrated to be fraudulent.  Even more disturbing is the fact that these drawings have been used to support the slaughter of millions of unborn babies since, it is alleged, these embryos are not fully human yet so it is fine to abort them.[18]

Another problem exists for the idea of embryonic recapitulation.  Jonathan Wells has shown that Haeckel’s drawings were not even based on the earliest stages of development.[19]  Haeckel selected only certain pictures because they might possibly support his theory.  Each of the creatures in Haeckel’s drawings looks much different in their earliest stages of development.  This new information completely demolishes the claims of embryological support for the evolutionary theory.

The fourth piece of evidence given by Coyne is vestigial organs.  These body parts are supposedly leftovers from the evolutionary process that may have served a purpose in the past but no longer have any function.  Specifically, Coyne states that “one of the best-known vestigial organs is the human appendix...it serves no known purpose and is, in fact, often harmful to them.”[20]  Norman Geisler correctly points out that “just because functions for these organs [appendix, ear muscles, and third eyelid] are not known does not mean that none exist.”[21]  Scientists are continually discovering that each part of the human body serves a specific role.  Geisler stated,

It is significant that the list of vestigial organs has shrunk from around 100 when the idea was first proposed to about a half dozen today.  There are hints about purposes for some of those.  The appendix may aid in digestion and may be helpful in fighting off disease.[22]

          The entire vestigial organ argument is simply an argument from lack of evidence.  In logic, this is known as the fallacy of ad ignorantium, meaning that since scientists do not understand the purpose of the appendix, it must not have one.  It would make more sense to wait until further research is done on the subject.  Since most of the original so-called vestigial organs have been removed from the list, it is likely that the remaining half-dozen will eventually be removed as well.

Coyne’s fifth argument for evolution is the claim that it can be directly observed today.  He wrote, “Evolutionary change is normally extremely slow.  But in some cases it is rapid and can be seen as it occurs in living species.”[23]  In support of this assertion cites the famous peppered moth observations.  As the story goes, prior to the Industrial Revolution, 80% of these moths were light and 20% were dark.  Apparently, this was because the light colored moths blended in with the lichens that grew on the tree trunks and were not eaten as often by birds while their dark counterparts were easily spotted.  As more and more factories were built, soot began to build up on the tree trunks and the dark moths began to blend in so that they were in the majority in the 19^th century.[24]

There are numerous problems with this theory.  First, scientists have discovered that the entire experiment was a fraud.  The peppered moths do not even land on tree trunks.  The famous pictures that appear in biology books worldwide show two dead moths that were glued to the wood for the picture.[25]  Secondly, even if these observations were actually made, it would not lend any support for evolution.  Once again, this is only an example of changes within a species, in this case Biston betulara.  Coyne believes that light-colored moths evolved into dark-colored moths and that this is a great example of evolution.  However, during the entire time, there were both light-colored and dark-colored moths present in the population.  This would be a great example of natural selection at work, if it were true, but does not advance the evolutionist’s case.

Incidentally, Coyne has since discovered that the peppered moth story is a fraud.  Writing in Nature, he stated that the peppered moth story, which was “the prize horse in our stable” had to be thrown out.[26]  He also stated that this “realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real.”[27]

The second example given by Coyne as evidence that evolution is occurring today is the fact that certain bacteria allegedly evolve immunities to pesticides.  Again, this is simply not true.  In reality, in a given population of bacteria, there are some members that have developed mutations making them less susceptible to the pesticide.  The pesticide kills off the healthy bacteria and the mutated strain survives.  The next generation of bacteria inherits this mutation.  The final result of this scenario is that the new bacteria actually have less genetic information than the previous generation.  This is exactly opposite of what evolution requires.  Evolutionary scientists must come up with a mechanism that could bring about an increase of information. 

Coyne’s final piece of evidence is artificial selection.  This concept refers to the selective breeding done by plant and animal breeders.  Dogs are cited as an example of the huge changes that can take place within a particular species.  Coyne even admits that all the dogs in the world “probably descended from one or a few dog species that were bred to develop various traits.”[28]  Once again the article gives a perfectly good example of microevolution but fails to provide any evidence that one kind of animal or plant can turn into a completely different kind.  Yet this is exactly what the evolutionist needs to provide in order to support the theory.  This is another example of equivocation.  It is at this particular point that Coyne takes a leap from the realm of observable science into the realm of unobserved speculative fantasy. 

The ability of artificial selection to cause dramatic changes in a short time leaves little doubt that natural selection could cause larger changes over the vast spans of earth’s history.[29] 

Again, there are multiple fatal problems with his assertion.  First, through a careful study of the DNA molecule, geneticists have demonstrated that there is a limit to the amount of change that can occur within a species.  In other words, dogs will always give birth to dogs and cats will always give birth to cats.[30]  Second, the alleged “vast spans” of time have been called into question by using the evolutionists’ own dating methods.[31]  This jump from fact to fiction is just another example of the equivocation that evolutionists resort to since there is no evidence for their theory.

     The remainder of Coyne’s article is fairly accurate.  He provides a brief history of the evolutionary theory and proceeds to mention the level of acceptance that it has garnered in the United States.  In the final section of the article, he briefly wrote about the topic of evolution and religious beliefs.  The majority of this section is fair and accurate with the exception of the comment that many Christians, Muslims, and Orthodox Jews reject evolution because “it conflicts with their religious beliefs.”[32] While this is certainly true, it is implied that this is the only reason that people do not believe evolution.  He never mentioned that a large percentage of these people reject evolution on scientific grounds as well. 

     Coyne’s article on evolution is filled with misrepresentations and logical fallacies.  Even though Coyne used his so-called six best evidences for evolution, he never produced anything more than examples of changes within species.  It is unfortunate that the reader is presented with the same tired “evidence” that has been around for decades and soundly refuted on many occasions by both evolutionists and creationists. 

(back to reviews)