To come up with better evidence than nature offers, scientists have tried producing mutations in the laboratory, typically using fruit flies. These tiny insects reproduce in a matter of only days, which means researchers can expose them to radiation or toxic chemicals and then observe the resulting mutations over several generations What kinds of mutations have they produced? Larger wings. Smaller wings. Shriveled wings. No wings. They even get oddities like a fly with legs growing out of its head instead of antennae.
So what does it all add up to? To be frank, dysfunctional fruit flies. After half a century of bombarding fruit flies with radiation, scientists have not coaxed them into becoming a new kind of insect--or even a new and improved fruit fly. None of the mutated forms fly as well as the original form, and probably would not survive in the wild.
There's only one mutation that could even appear to be an improvement: The PBS "Evolution" series featured a mutation that produces four wings instead of two. Now that might seem to be an evolutionary advance. But if you were watching the program, and looked closely at the television screen, you would have seen that the extra wings don't actually move. That's because they don't have any muscles; they just hang motionless, weighing down the fly like a suit of armor. If mutations are the engine that drives evolution, as Darwinism claims, they certainly don't seem to be taking evolution anywhere.
...An enormous amount of research has been carried on within the Darwinian paradigm over the past century and a half, yet success has been limited to changes within those "fixed limitations," like mutations in fruit flies. Research has cast virtually no light on the really important questions, like how there came to be fruit flies in the first place. As one wag put it, Darwinism might explain the survival of the fittest, but it fails to explain the arrival of the fittest.1
In conclusion, don't believe everything you see on TV. I hope you are beginning to see that Evolutionary science is not really based on evidence. It is not a neutral, objective understanding of the world and its origin. It may resort to objective data, but the data won't support it.
To many people, this does not matter. They don't need data. Richard Dawkins writes, "Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory...we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories." Similarly, a Kansas State University professor stated, "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." Evolution is in fact a religion that worships the creation rather than the creator, an age old sin.
"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exhanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen." Romans 1:22-25
1Pearcey, Nancy. Total Truth. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2005.
