The great sweep of Darwin's theory, that all life is connected and appears in a series of related species over time, is absolutely supported by the fossil record. Totally unsupported, in fact thoroughly discredited, are Darwin's theories about the mechanisms behind these appearances.
There is absolutely no evidence that any higher species "becomes" another through genetic mutation. The great preponderance of evidence shows that once a species appears, it stays the same.
There is absolutely no evidence for "survival of the fittest." Observation always shows that all species within a biosphere have their exact niche. Every species therein, from the lowliest insects and fungi to the highest mammals and plants, plays an exact role, using the nutrients provided and in turn providing sustenance to other species, maintaining balance.
The "chance" development of such harmony would require many billions of "random" genetic changes, all of them exactly the right ones, at the same time, in thousands of unrelated species -- a theory totally unproven, thoroughly unlikely and entirely unscientific.
"Survival of the fittest" is a strictly human phenomenon. It began perhaps with the Romans, stripping Mediterranean islands of trees, for ship-building or profit-taking, causing the water tables on these islands to fall and thus denuding them of trees permanently. This drive reached its peak in the 19th century -- Darwin's time. Only in the last 100 years has perception and nurture of earth's natural harmonies begun. Will wisdom, respecting and repairing this damaged balance, win out over the continuing orgy of resource overuse now resulting in the disasters -- among others -- of global warming?
Species do not appear, as Darwin theorized, in a long, slow progression, but rather great extinctions -- e.g., the dinosaurs 65 million years ago -- are followed by the relatively quick appearance of whole realms of new species. While there is no evidence of God, there is, as noted above, overwhelming balance, harmony, beauty and wisdom.
There is no scientific evidence for the biblical creation. Yet we see scientists basing their case as well upon pure, unsupported belief in myths such as "chance mutation" and "survival of the fittest." Are they any better?
How do I "know" anything? What effect does my "knowledge" have on the outward appearances? Quantum physics and, lately, genetics have remarked the passing of the subject-object split. Whatever wisdom may have guided evolution in the past, it does so no longer.
The intelligence that now shepherds the development of earth and all its beings is human. We desperately need to learn the nature, powers and parameters of our knowledge and consciousness -- aka conscience. Only then can we know anything about whatever intelligence worked behind the wisdom-filled creation we have inherited; only then does the further "human" creation have a fighting chance.
Mark Ebersole lives in East Aurora.