Larsen Financial is a full-service investment center that has all the products and services of the major brokerages, but without the high costs.

Learn more.

The “Gaps” In Evolutionary Theory

  • The “Gaps” In Evolutionary Theory

  • 4 September 2011 by 0 Comments

The “Gaps” In Evolutionary Theory

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 09/04/11

Last week presidential candidate Rick Perry was asked about evolution, to which he responded, “it’s a theory that is out there — it’s got some gaps in it.” Perry’s answer drew the predictable ire and reprehension we’ve learned to expect from the establishment media, and leftist anti-God pundits, who arrogantly surmise that the science is just as settled with regard to evolution as it is with regard to anthropogenic global warming. Perry was exactly right, there are “gaps” in evolutionary theory.

Empirical scientific observations are classified roughly into three categories: hypotheses, theories, and laws. The weakest of these are hypotheses, while laws provide the strongest scientific explanations.

Evolution, as taught in most schools, is classified as a theory. Some aspects of evolutionary theory are correct, and are validated by the paleontological and genetic evidence. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, and adaptation, are all well documented. If evolution is defined as cumulative change over time then it is verifiable. Even “descent with modification” applied to specific species is scientifically verifiable. But Charles Darwin claimed much more than this, as he asserted that all species originate from one . This is Darwinism, and is scientifically unverifiable and, as such, is little more than conjecture.

To apply the valid tenets of evolution and then make Kierkegaardian” leaps of faith” to make assertions that are not supported by the science is what Darwinism does. Such assumptions include, but are not limited to, trans-genus, trans-class, or trans-species evolution. There is no paleontological evidence of gradual and progressive evolution of bugs to mice, or frogs to birds, etc. And to make the presumption that this all started from a big bang which itself is causally inexplicable to scientists is another such leap of faith.

Stephen Gould, Professor of Geology and Peleontology at Harvard, although an evolutionist, has admitted, “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” He continues, “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little [actually, nothing] in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between the major groups are characteristically abrupt.” Even pre-Cambrian fossil discoveries in China did not provide the evidence sought by Darwinists.

Another major gap in Darwinism is the genetic component. Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, has said that the information stored within our DNA is essentially a genetic code, much like a computer language. Because of this characteristic, mathematical probabilities can be calculated based on presumptions of Darwinistic evolutionary theory.

One such calculation has been conducted by Dr. Frank Salisbury of the Division of Biomedical and Environment Research at the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission many years ago. He examined the chance of one of the most basic chemical reactions for Darwinistic evolution to take place. This reaction involves the formation of a specific DNA molecule within a 4 billion year time period. He calculated that chance as 10 x 415-power. This number has 415 zeros after it! That’s for one molecule. The evolutionary improbability grows exponentially when you consider there are billions of such molecules in human dna.

Dr. Emile Borel, a French mathematician, formulated a basic law of probability. It states that the occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in 10 x 50-power, a much smaller figure than what Salisbury came up with, is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted.

Clearly, then, it’s a mathematical impossibility for life to have evolved as Darwinists claim. Not only does paleontological evidence not support it as there is no evidence of transitional fossils, but the massive strides in genetic research made over the past few decades actually make it more difficult to support.

Evolutionary theory scientifically explains much regarding the advancement of life. But the pure science cannot explain the original of the universe, the origin of life, or the biological origin of man, empirically, inductively or deductively. To claim they can is factually and scientifically incorrect.

Even I, a non-scientist, can reason through what is scientifically verifiable and what is not, regarding evolutionary theory. And an educated electorate, which is demanded by a republic such as ours, must be able to do so as well. Otherwise, “scientists,” media, and teachers with agendas, will prey upon our collective ignorance to convince us it’s not scientific to question Darwinism or other postulations.

A Darwinist must exercise faith to come to the conclusion that all life evolved from a single organism, just as a man of faith might accept an intelligent design explanation. I, for one, would prefer a theological possibility, rather than a paleontologically unverified mathematical impossibility.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at

About the

More than anything, I want my readers to think. We're told what to think by the education establishment, which is then parroted by politicians from the left, and then reinforced by the mainstream media. Steeped in classical liberalism, my ideological roots are based in the Constitution and our founding documents. Armed with facts, data, and correct principles, today's conservatives can see through the liberal haze and bring clarity to any political discussion.

Related Posts