Home / Science VS Evolution / PDF /Encyclopedia  /Pathlights Home / Bookstore


Here are the two best evidences of evolutionary change. Evolutionists tell us these prove that one species can change into another. But, as you will again learn below, evolutionary theory is a myth. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

CONTENTS: The Moths and the Finches

The Peppered Moth: Two varieties of the same moth, no species change!
The Darwin Finches: Several varieties of the same finch, no species change!

This material is excerpted from the book, NATURAL SELECTION.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists. You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page,
Natural Selection.

The two outstanding examples, set forth by evolutionists, of change across species are the peppered moths of England and the finches of the Galapagos Islands. In this article, we will discover that neither one provides evidence of evolutionary change.

Keep in mind that genuine evolutionary change requires change from one species into another. We all agree that changes regularly occur within species. That is how we got all our breeds of dogs and cats, all our varieties of roses and mums. Change within a species is not evolution.


In his large 940-page book, Asimov's New Guide to Science, *Isaac Asimov mentions that some fools oppose evolution, saying it has never been proven; but then Asimov gives us a single, outstanding evidence: the peppered moths. This is astounding—in view of the fact that it is no evidence at all! Isaac Asimov is the leading evolutionary science writer of the mid-twentieth century. If the peppered moths are the best he can come up with in defense of evolution, surely evolutionists have no case.

The peppered moths, in England, are the most frequently discussed evolutionary proofs of natural selection.

"This is the most striking evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by man."—*International Wildlife Encyclopedia (1970 edition), Vol. 20, p. 2706.

After noting that Darwin was plagued by his inability to demonstrate the evolution of even one species, *Jastrow said:

"Had he known it, an example was at hand which would have provided him with the proof he needed. The case was an exceedingly rare one . . the peppered moths."—*Robert Jastrow, Red Giants and White Dwarfs, p. 235.

"One of the arguments of the creationists is that no one has ever seen the forces of evolution at work. That would seem the most nearly irrefutable of their arguments, and yet it, too, is wrong.

"In fact, if any confirmation of Darwinism were needed, it has turned up in examples of natural selection that have taken place before our eyes (now that we know what to watch for). A notable example occurred in Darwin's native land.

"In England, it seems, the peppered moths exist in two varieties, a light and a dark . ."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov's New Guide to Science (1984), p. 780.

Before 1845 near Birmingham, England, the peppered moths were primarily light-colored, but some had darker wings. (These darker varieties were called the melanic or carbonaria forms.)

In accordance with Mendelian genetics, some offspring were always born with light-colored wings while others had darker wings. Thus it had been for centuries. These little moths would alight on the light-colored tree trunks, and birds, able to see the darker ones more easily, ate them and tended to ignore the light-colored varieties. Yet both varieties continued to be produced. But then the industrial revolution came and the trees became darker from smoke and grime—and birds began eating the lighter ones. In the 1850s, about 98% of the uneaten peppered moths were the light variety; because of recessive and dominant genes, peppered moths regularly produced both varieties as offspring.

By the 1880s in the Manchester, England, area, toxic gases and soot were killing the light-colored lichens on the trees and darkened even more the naturally dark tree trunks. The changeover from light to dark moths began there also. The smoke and smog from the factories darkened the trunks of the trees where the moths rested. This darkening of the trees made the dark-hued moths difficult to see, and the lighter ones quite easy for the birds to spot.

By the 1950s, 98% of the peppered moths were the dark variety. All the while the moths continued to produce both dark and light varieties.

Evolutionists point to this as a "proof of evolution," but it is NOT a proof of evolution. We all know that there can be variation within species. Variations within a species is not evolution. There are dozens of varieties of dogs, cats, and pigeons. But no new types have been produced. They are still dogs, cats, and pigeons.

There can be light-peppered moths and dark-peppered moths,—but they are all still peppered moths. Even as Asimov admitted in the above quotations, they are but variations within a single species. The name of the single species which includes them both is Biston betularia. They are all peppered moths, nothing more and nothing less.

When *Harrison Matthews wrote the introduction for the 1971 edition of *Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species, he denied the possibility of evolution in several respects, and said this about the peppered moth:

"The [peppered moth] experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress; for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate or dark forms, all the moths remain, from beginning to end, Biston betularia."—*L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction," to Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species (1971 edition), p. xi.

Let us consider this matter a little more deeply: Because of dominant and recessive genes (Mendelian genetics), this little moth continued to produce both light and dark offspring for thousands of years while the birds kept eating the dark varieties. Yet dark ones continued to be born! This is proof of the stability of the species, which is exactly the opposite of evolutionary "proof!" In recent years, industrial pollution laws are making the air cleaner, and the lighter moths are again becoming more common. This is not evolution, but simply a color change back and forth within a stable species.

"This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage; but, since it begins and ends with moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution."—On Call, July 2, 1973, p. 9.

*Hoyle and *Wickramasinghe, leading British scientists, said this about evolutionary claims for the peppered moth:

"We doubt, however, that anything more is involved in these cases than the selection of already existing genes."—*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 5.

*Grene adds this:

"The recent work of H.B.D. Kettlewell on industrial melanism has certainly confirmed the hypothesis that natural selection takes place in nature. This is the story of the black mutant of the common peppered moth which, as Kettlewell has shown with beautiful precision, increases in numbers in the vicinity of industrial centers and decreases, being more easily exposed to predators, in rural areas. Here, say the neo-Darwinians, is natural selection; that is, evolution, actually going on. But to this we may answer: selection, yes; the color of moths or snails or mice is clearly controlled by visibility to predators; but `evolution'? Do these observations explain how, in the first place, there come to be any moths or snails or mice at all? By what right are we to extrapolate the pattern by which color or other such superficial characters are governed by the origin of species, let alone of classes, orders, phyla of living organisms?"—*Marjorie Grene, "The Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November 1959, p. 52.


During Charles Darwin's five-year voyage on the H.M.S. Beagle, he visited the Galapagos, a group of islands in the Pacific more than 600 miles from the mainland of South America. He found several different finches (Geospizinae) on the Galapagos Islands. Although they all looked nearly alike, they had developed a number of different habits and diets, and a little cross-breeding between these 14 (some say 13, others 17) finches occurred. Yet they were all still finches. When Darwin arrived back in England, a friend told him that this was very significant. So Darwin, knowing nothing of modern genetics and the boundary imposed by DNA to changes across basic types, imagined that perhaps these birds were all different types—and evolution across types had indeed occurred.

If you will personally examine all the Galapagos Island finches (often called Darwin finches), you will find that they do indeed look just about alike. They are subspecies of a single parent species which, at some earlier time, reached the island from South America. (If hummingbirds can fly across the Gulf of Mexico, finches ought to be able to be borne by storms to the Galapagos Islands.) An excellent collection of all 14 of these finches is in the California Academy of Science, in San Francisco. One scientist who carefully examined this collection, described it in these words:

"The Darwin finches are a rather drab gray to brownish colored group of birds, except of the almost fully black dorsal plumage of the male of some species. The whole collection had an appearance of general uniformity. Only the Certhidea, or Warbler, finches seemed truly distinctive.

"Were it not for the historical importance of these finches as one of the `pillars' of evidence for the evolution of adaptive variations, I doubt if much attention would be given them . .

"If one were to remove all the species labels and arrange the Darwin finches from the largest to the smallest in body and bill size, complete integration of plumage coloration, although the smaller birds tend to have lighter gray feathers . .

"If species are to be erected on such minute norms, then indeed we will be burdened with an almost infinite number of names."—Walter Lammerts, "The Galapagos Island Finches," in Why Not Creation? (1970), pp. 335, 360-361. Darwin stumbled over the truth of species variation. He had never had a day of science training in school; and, when he saw a variety of finches, he decided that each was a different type of bird—and evolution had occurred! This gave him the idea that if variations go across species—from one basic type to another—then perhaps all the families, genera, and species descended from a common ancestor that created itself!

When *Charles Darwin wrote his book, Origin of the Species, He gave many examples of variations within species, and tried to use them to prove evolution outside of true species.

All this was before the discovery of Mendelian genetics, the gene, the chromosome, DNA, and the DNA barrier to evolution across basic types. In his ignorance Darwin wrote down his theory and evolutionists today cling to it, fearful to abandon it.

One of the Galapagos finches learned to use a small stick to dig worms out of tree bark. The other finches could not do that, so Darwin decided that was a profound proof of evolution. At one time, the present writer had three cockatiels in his home; the parents and a daughter. The mother had learned how to open the cage door and hop out. Year after year, the others would watch her do it, without understanding how she accomplished the task. If permitted, she would do it dozens of times a day, yet the others never considered even trying to do it; although, with their natural curiosity, they would carefully watch her as she did it. Yet they all are the same species of bird; even the same lineage. People are the same way. Some can learn things that others cannot grasp. Yet that is not evolution from one species to another.

It is acknowledged by scientists that all dogs descended from a common ancestor, and all are dogs. Yet there are far greater differences among dogs than there were among Darwin's finches or than most other subspecies in the world.

Many other examples of variation within species could be cited. In south central Africa, the Pygmy and Masai tribes live not far from each other. One is the shortest group of people in existence today; the other, the tallest. Both are human beings; only the height is different.

Pigeon fanciers tell us there are more color variations among pigeons than among any other animal or bird in the world. That is the result of only a couple centuries of intensive breeding by fanciers in Europe and America. In spite of the variations, they can all interbreed and are just pigeons.

Within 14 years after writing Origin of the Species, *Darwin confessed to a friend:

"In fact the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations [faith and theorizing] . . When we descend to details, we can't prove that no one species has changed . . nor can we prove that the supposed changes . . nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not."—*Charles Darwin, letter to Jeremy Bentham, in Francis Darwin (ed.), Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, Vol. 3, p. 25.


Forward to the next topic in this series:

CIRCULAR REASONING, ITS OWN PROOF. It is so because it is so. Don't you agree?