Fossils Do Not Prove Evolution

Fossil nautilus [1]

David B. Kitts (1923–2010) studied zoology, population genetics, paleontology and geology. Among his professors were prominent evolutionists Th. Dobzhansky and G.G. Simpson. He got his PhD in geology in 1953. Certainly, he is qualified to evaluate the significance of the fossil record.

In 1979 he authored a review of a book by another evolutionist, Pierre-P. Grassé, who was decidedly critical of the Darwinian flavor of evolutionary theory. The review is full of revealing statements about how paleontologists reconstruct the history of life on Earth. It is a highly recommended reading for anyone interested in the origins debate.  

Here is one of the most interesting statements from the review:

“Darwinian paleontologists cannot take much comfort from the fact that the fossil record does not compel them to reject their theory because it does not compel them to accept it either. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even ahistorical theories.” [2]

According to D.B. Kitts it is impossible to prove either Darwinian or any other flavor of evolution using the fossil record. More than that, the fossil record is compatible, again according to Kitts, an evolutionary geologist, even with the theory of special creation.

So, if someone tells you that fossils prove Darwin was right, you can rest assured it is not true.

Why do so many people believe that fossils prove Darwinian evolution? In the work reviewed by Kitts, P.-P. Grassé gives quite blunt an answer:

 “ … Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that they should confirm it: the premises imply the conclusion. The error in method is obvious.” [3] (italics in the original – I.B.)

Grassé says, in other words, that they start with an assumption that Darwin was right, and they make fossils look like he was.

Does D.B. Kitts argue with P.-P. Grassé over this point? Not at all. He wholeheartedly agrees with Grassé’s indictment:

“If a paleontologist claims to have supported the fundamental tenets of Darwinian theory in citing the fossil record then he has indeed committed a methodological error.”

In conclusion, let me repeat the obvious truth: fossils do not prove evolution. However, creation believing scientists make a stronger claim. They assert that fossils disprove evolution and argue powerfully for creation.

Recommended resources:

$34.99

$29.99

$15.99

[1] Author: Hitchster; lisence: CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/); source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/hitchster/4217645856.

[2] Kitts, D.B. Search for the Holy Transformation, Paleobiology, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Summer, 1979), p. 354.

[3] ibid., p. 353.