ANS: NOT MUCH
The past half-century has not been kind to Darwin’s theory. When his book was published, Darwin admitted that the fossil record that ought to have supported his theory was full of gaps, but confidently predicted that a great many of the missing transitional species would be found to fill these. But now, more than 150 years later, with paleontologists having explored vast reaches of the planet, the fossil record still fails to show the evidence Darwin predicted would be found. Meanwhile, new discoveries about the vast complexity of the cell, and the explosion of the field of microbiology, have added further difficulties that challenge Darwin’s theory. today, hundreds of scientists doubt evolution to the point of rejecting it.
Otto Schindewolf, perhaps the leading paleontologist of the 20th century, wrote that the fossils "directly contradict" Darwin. Steven Stanley, a paleontologist who teaches at Johns Hopkins, writes in
The New Evolutionary timetable that "the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another’” (“An Evening With Darwin in New York,” Crisis, April 2006, online edition).
Ongoing discoveries about the astounding complexity of DNA continue to provide solid evidence for the divine creation of life. In fact, it was an objective look at DNA that led the late Sir Antony Flew, long the leading atheist in England, to renounce his atheism and accept the existence of a divine Creator.He acknowledged that he had changed his mind about a Creator “almost entirely because of the DNA investigations.” He explained: “What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that
intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.“ It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence” (There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, 2007, p. 75).
He went on to say: “I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. “Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? Te short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science. Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. Te first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. Te third is the very existence of nature.” He concluded that when it came to assessing the evidence of nature, “We must follow the argument wherever it leads”—which in his case was to the conclusion that the only reasonable and logical answer is a Divine Creator. From BEYOND TODAY, July-August 2016