SECTION VIII Chapter 3. Science vs. Creationism over the Question of Evolution Doctrinal Issues Between Science and Fundamentalist Religion "Public schools have taught humanistic philosophy with its permissiveness And its theory of evolution, thus reducing man to the level of an animal and giving him no purpose of life." --Michael R. Lowman "With creationism in the saddle, American science will wither, and we will raise a generation of ignoramuses who will not be equipped to run the industry of tomorrow, much less to generate the new advances of the days after tomorrow." --Isaac Asimov "God, the creator of the universe, can never be against learning the laws of what he has created." -- Mustafa Mahmoud Where Science Confronts Fundamentalist Religion Scientists have accumulated a massive amount of data that consistently points to an earth that is billions of years old, and to evolution as the mechanism for animal and plant variation around the world. There is DISAGREEMENT within the scientific community regarding the exact MECHANISM by which evolution takes place, but virtual AGREEMENT that evolution of plant and animal life is a scientific fact. Religious groups are split over their acceptance of the theory of evolution: Many religious groups have accepted evolution as the MECHANISM through which God has created all life on earth. They therefore see no conflict with evolution and religion! For example, the Anglican theologian Charles Kingsley (who was a contemporary of Charles Darwin) wrote how he believed evolution proved that God was even MORE powerful than originally thought because this meant God must have ALSO CREATED the mechanism by which life generates new life: "We know of old that God was so wise that he could make all things; but behold, he is so much wiser even than that, that he can make all things make themselves." And according to Reverend Arthur Peacock (a winner of the Templeton Prize for progress in religion and former director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for the Study of Science and Religion in Oxford): "... the theory of evolution, far from undermining faith, deepens it." "The fact that the universe probably began about 12 billion years ago with life beginning to evolve about 3 billion years ago simply underlines the extraordinary detailed, persistent, patience of the divine creator spirit." "This attempt to see the Book of Genesis as a rival to scientific truth [also] stops people taking the Bible seriously. Biblical literalism brings not only the Bible but Christianity itself into disrepute." Even today, the vast majority of people who support evolution also believe in a God. According to a 1999 Poll, 83% of Americans want evolution taught in the classroom and about 70% believe the theory of evolution is compatible with a belief in God. (http://www.pfaw.org/issues/education/creationism-poll.pdf) Many religious believers (which includes scientists) have noted that the Hebrew word for "day" is similar to the word "eon", meaning a large period of time. They interpret the literal SIX DAYS of creation in Genesis as SIX EONS of time, which roughly corresponds to the formation of the universe and life on earth. Christian fundamentalist religious groups strongly disagree. To them, the Word of God (as recorded in the Judaic-Christian Bible) is divinely inspired-- and therefore MUST BE LITERALLY TRUE! They view evolution as a REJECTION of the literal teachings of the Bible, and therefore an affront to God's authority. Whenever scientific observation "appears" to conflict with what is stated in the Bible then either: 1. the scientific observation is in error, or else, 2. Satan and his human allies are deceitfully manipulating geological and fossil data in order to trick mankind into believing in evolution and thus falling away from God's Word. To Christian fundamentalists, the battle for the teaching of evolution vs. creationism in the classroom, is part of the struggle between God and the Devil for the souls of mankind! Conservative religious groups fear that the theory of evolution weakens morality by teaching that mankind was not specially and uniquely created by God, in effect reducing him to the same level as an animal and giving him no purpose for life. Evolution also weakens the Argument from Design--considered for thousands of years as one of the best proofs for the existence of God. These ultra-conservative/fundamentalist Christian groups insist on the absolute inerrancy of the Bible, and with it the literal description of God's creation of earth as recorded in the book of Genesis-hence their name "Creationists". (Of course, it should be noted that anti-evolution advocates can be found on both the right AND the left of the political spectrum: Stalinist communists reject evolution because their ideology does not accept that human behavior has a biological origin. Left wing utopians generally accept evolution, but only as a progressive ongoing process-- leading for example towards larger brains over time. I have not devoted much space to these leftist ideologies, as their political influence has not been strong as with their conservative religious counterparts.) Scientists claim creationists ignore the fact that evolution seems to be the best scientific way to explain the geological and biological data that has been accumulated over the centuries. They point out that many creationists resort to mystical explanations to account for scientific data that conflicts with the biblical account--relying on supernatural escape clauses such as the magical "waters of Noah's Flood", or quasi-scientific references to "relativity" or "quantum mechanics" (without benefit of the physics equations). Most debaters on the subject of creationism usually take their audience down a tour of scientific theories and discoveries. However, it's just usually just a matter of time before everyone (with the possible exception of the debaters) is lost in a maze of scientific jargon. I have taken a decidedly different approach: to start with the creationist point of view and to carefully read what the Bible itself says on this matter! From there, I have shown how a "literal" interpretation of the Bible would require MAJOR changes in science-with tentacles affecting far more than removing "a few" chapters in biology books that discuss the theory of evolution. The Two Creation Stories in Genesis, Chapter One and Chapter Two In his EVOLUTION? THE FOSSILS SAY NO! one of the leading creationists-- Duane Gish defines the meaning of creation: "By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation. We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, FOR HE USED PROCESSES WHICH ARE NOT NOW OPERATING ANYWHERE IN THE NATURAL UNIVERSE. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator."(as quoted by Stephen Jay Gould, HEN'S TEETH AND HORSE'S TOES, Norton, New York , 1983,p 257) Since creation is defined as the "literal" version of creation as found in GENESIS, this means the creation stories of ALL other religions (including Hindus, Buddhists, Zorastrians, and American Indians) are FALSE! Their stories of creation represent obvious MYTHS, which do NOT belong in science classrooms-- unlike the Judaic-Christian "true" account of the creation! But what are the implications of teaching the Genesis creation story in SCIENCE classes, and teaching a fundamental, LITERAL interpretation of the Bible in general? To answer this, we must look at the Genesis Creation story. This requires us to review BOTH of the two accounts of the creation story in Genesis. (Many people are not aware that many of the Old Testament stories-including the story of creation are duplicated. See Section III, Chapter 1 for an explanation of this): 1. Genesis - Chapter 1 account: the "Six Days of Creation", and the 2. Genesis - Chapter 2 account: "God created Adam out of Dust/Eve out of a Rib" Below is a summary of the creation story in Chapter 1, which as we shall see is very different in description and tone with the creation story in Chapter 2. GENESIS-CHAPTER 1: "SIX DAYS OF CREATION STORY" Genesis-Chapter 1 states God created the universe in six days, and in the following order: DAY 1: God created the Heaven and the Earth. Then he ordered Light (which He called Day) to come into existence, and divided it from the Darkness (which He called Night). DAY 2: God created the firmament of Heaven out of the watery universe, separating the waters which were under the firmament with those which were over the firmament. DAY 3: God ordered the waters of the earth to gather away from the land, and ordered the earth to bring forth grass and trees bearing fruit. DAY 4: God made the sun, the moon, and the stars: "And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, to rule the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness." DAY 5: God created fish and winged fowl. God created whales. DAY 6: God created the animals. Then God made created man in HIS image. DAY 7: God rested from all His work that he had done. GENESIS--CHAPTER 2 "God created Adam out of Dust/Eve out of a Rib" Creation Account In Genesis, Chapter 2:4-25, which starts over with the words "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created..." the creation occurs as follows: * Genesis 2:6-- God created a mist to rise from the earth to water the land. * Genesis 2:7-- God created man out of the dust of the ground. * Genesis 2:8-- God planted a garden in Eden and put man there. * Genesis 2:9 --God grew trees in Eden, which included food for the man. * Genesis 2:18--God said "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him" * Genesis 2:19 God formed every beast and bird, and brought them to Adam for him to name. * Genesis 2:22 God created woman out of one of Adam's ribs. Impact from Creationist Explanation of the Origin of Life on Earth Naturally since BOTH accounts are in the Bible, then a literal interpretation would hold BOTH must be true accounts of the creation! However there is a discrepancy between the two versions on whether "man" or "animals" was created first: * In Genesis-Chapter 1, animals were created BEFORE man. * In Genesis-Chapter 2, this order is reversed--with man created before the animals! Conservative Protestant theologians have attempted to reconcile this discrepancy by speculating there must have been TWO creations: That is, God became angry at the first creation and destroyed it in His divine anger. (There is a problem with this view, of course! For it would seem puzzling why the writer(s) of Genesis would have omitted such a dramatic story demonstrating God's wrath in destroying the world a first time, especially considering the emphasis placed on other accounts of God's wrath and destruction--such as the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah.) Most Christians believe there was only one creation. For more liberal to moderate Christians, they accept some biblical stories as poetic narratives imparting important moral themes--as opposed to literal, 100% accurate scientific and historical documents! Catholics look at such passages as proof why individuals do not always have the ability (unlike the pope) to correctly interpret biblical passages. Non-Catholics question the inerrancy of the Catholicism noting how in earlier times it promoted a literal belief in witches and put Galileo on trial for spreading the (then) heretical belief that the earth revolves around the sun. Conflicts between the Biblical Creation Stories and Modern Science: The Creation accounts in Genesis conflict with science in more areas than just evolution --astrology, botany, and geology being examples: * According to Genesis, the earth and heaven were created on Day 1, and the sun, moon, and other stars were created on Day 4. Modern astronomy teaches that earth is an ORDINARY planet that was not created EARLIER than the sun and the rest of the universe! (Indeed modern astronomy teaches that our solar system which includes the earth, is billions of years younger than the rest of the universe.) * God created "Light" on Day 1, "grass and trees bearing fruit" on Day 3, and the sun on Day 4. Modern science knows of no "light" apart from sunlight that can drive the energy needed for life on earth. Biology teaches that grasses and tree bearing fruit grow from the process of photosynthesis, which ultimately derives its energy from the sun! * Were the sun, moon, and stars placed in the firmament of heaven for the purpose of "giving light upon the earth"? (see Day 4, Genesis 1:17) According to modern astronomy, it should take millions of years for the light from many of the stars to have REACHED earth, because of the vast distances involved. * Is the earth flat instead of spherical? The prophet Daniel described a vision of a giant tree situated in the middle of the earth, whose "top reached heaven and [which] was visible to the end of the whole earth." (Daniel 4:10-11). Daniel was clearly envisioning a flat earth, since a giant tree was needed from which to view the entire world. Likewise, Matthew implied the earth was flat when he stated that Jesus was able to see every empire on earth when looking down from a high mountaintop. (Matthew 4:8) (#2) * Is the earth a STATIONARY body in the universe, as opposed to revolving around the sun, which in turn wheels around our galaxy? According to Chronicles 16:30," the world stands firm, never to be moved" (See also, Psalms 93:1,96:10, and 104:5). According to the Old Testament, Joshua ordered the sun to halt, implying the earth is fixed in space with the sun revolving around it-- in order to give the hebrew army more sunlight for taking "vengeance on their enemies" (Joshua 10:12- 14). But modern astronomy teaches the earth and planets revolve AROUND THE SUN. Astronomical data shows that the earth is not situated even anywhere close to the center of the universe, but is located in a REMOTE region of the Milky Way galaxy. The Milky Way galaxy, in turn, is said to be only one insignificant galaxy, among billions of other galaxies. *How Old is the Earth? Geology teaches that the earth is billions of years old - as opposed to being created in six days about six thousand years ago. *In 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2, the author describes how when Solomon built the Temple in Jerusalem, that a circular bowl was made that measured 10 cubits in diameter and 30 cubits in circumference. As any mathematician can tell you, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter is a mathematical constant known as pi--and whose PRECISE value is GREATER than 3 (ie 3.1415926...) Of course, the ancient hebrews had the correct general idea of what "pi" was about. The point is, that no modern mathematician could obtain its EXACT, LITERAL value from reading the scriptures. Problems with the Genesis Account of the Flood Creation "scientists" are NOT actively looking for data that would DISPROVE their theory. The Story of Noah's ark and the Flood have created a number of scientific challenges for Creationists: *Religious theologians have struggled for centuries to "scientifically" explain how an ark could have been constructed to hold EVERY known species of animals on the earth--while maintaining temperature, food, and waste control for them. Oth *How did the animals from around the world migrate to and from the Ark? --Kangaroos and koala bears exist only in Australia, and penguins and polar bears live in cold climates. There is no evidence of these animals ever being present in the Middle East. Were they supernaturally transported from their native habitats to the Ark, and then back again following the Flood, with no traces left that they were ever present in the Middle East? --And what would the koala bear have eaten on the ark? Koala bears only eat eucalyptus tree leaves, which are indigenous to Australia and Indonesia alone. (There are many other examples such as panda bears only eating from the bamboo tree indigenous around China). *Scientists agree that there were large floods in local, regional areas, but find no evidence for covering the ENTIRE earth. Where did all the water go after the Flood receded if it indeed covered the entire surface of the Earth? (Some creationists have speculated there must be deep seas of water hidden within deep fissures of the earth that no one has located yet. *Certain cultures (such as the Egyptians) that have carefully preserved their history, maintain no records of a large flood. *If the Flood was truly meant to destroy "all flesh that moved upon the earth", why weren't fishes and sea mammals--such as dolphins and whales- destroyed as well? (Note, some translations of the Genesis story imply that God "only" wanted to destroy "all flesh that moved upon the LAND".) Then there are some general questions regarding special creation: *Genetic studies show that DNA molecules from closely related species resemble each other more than distantly related species. *Genetic studies show the Human genome is comprised of 95-98% junk, with the working 2-5% sequences containing genes that show an evolutionary history that includes viruses and bacteria * Scientists estimate there are about 100 million species in the world. A large proportion of these are bugs (twenty percent of the 100 million species are beetles!) If God specially created each species, then he must have spent more time making insects than humans. Did He then have a special affinity for beetles? Do all varieties of bugs serve a purpose? As Mark Twain quipped once, "The good Lord didn't create anything without a purpose, but the fly comes close." * Why as one moves from younger to OLDER layers of the fossil record, species appear to have evolved from simpler forms and common ancestors. As Stephen Jay Gould noted, "If God made each of the half dozen species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporary sequence of progressively more modern features-increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create this to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?" So much data supporting evolutionary change has been collected, that as Gould and others have noted, IF evolution were indeed false, then either God, or alternatively the Devil himself must have falsely planted millions of faked fossils in order to "trick" those who use observation and science to guide them. Creationists largely get around problems such as explaining the LITERAL nature of the Flood and Ark by arguing that if God is truly all-powerful, then He would have the power to create ANY miracle-- exactly as described in the Bible! Creationists try to avoid the issue that this is a religiously inspired argument, and NOT a scientific one. By relying primarily on FAITH in the biblical account of creation, AND ignoring any scientific evidence that would be contrary to a belief in creationism "scientific creation" is not really scientific at all-- but clearly falls under the category of an ideology or religion. Geological Evidence for the Earth being Billions of Years Old One fact both creationists and the evolutionists agree on is that evolution would need billions of years in order to work. Creationists maintain that the earth is around six thousand years old (according to Bishop Ussher's famous calculations made in 1645). But let's turn this argument around and see what evidence exists for Earth being LESS than 10,000 years old? That is, what evidence are creationists ignoring in order to prove the validity of their young-Earth theory? The following is a list of what Creationists must ignore or refute: *why do we see stars in the sky that are millions of light years away from earth. Creationists argue that God created starlight separately from the stars at the time of creation- just so humans could enjoy this at night! *why does the transitional nature of the fossil record shows older creatures in lower stratum of rock, and more recently evolved creatures in higher stratum. *How could major geological processes take place over thousands (as opposed to millions/billions of years. For example, literal creationists disagree that the Colorado River cut through the Grand Canyon over millions of years, insisting "special" properties of Noah's Flood sped up the process to fit within their 6000 age of the earth. (Creationists typically are silent to such problems as why only extremely primitive life form fossils - as opposed to advanced organisms can be found in the pre-Flood rocks of the Grand Canyon?) *Young earth creationists such as Gish maintain that radioactive dating (such as the carbon-14 method) is only reliable for short-term dating. That is, the decay rates of the radioactive isotopes used to date rocks could have been much greater under extreme past conditions (like a great Flood), so the rocks are really much younger than they "seem" to be. There is no legitimate evidence for this claim from experimental or theoretical physics. Argument from the Second Law of Thermodynamics Nowhere have creationists created more confusion than on their use (most scientists would say abuse) of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Many creationists have claimed the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible! This view was put forth by Henry Morris in his book THE TROUBLED WATERS OF EVOLUTION: "The fact is, the most certain laws of science [ie second law of thermodynamics] state that the real processes of nature do not make things go uphill, but downhill. Evolution is impossible." (1975, p 110) According to scientists, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says you can't finish any real physical process with as much useful energy as you had to start with - for some energy is always wasted. (This is why a perpetual motion machine is impossible. It will always require more energy as input than it can generate as output.) The implications of the Second Law on biology are that life systems require energy (food) as input to drive their internal and external processes. Creationists such as Morris are correct in stating that processes tend to go downhill, not uphill, in accordance to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But, they are INCORRECT IN HOW THEY APPLY THIS LAW TOWARDS EVOLUTION! For they "assume" there is no outside energy source (such as a pump, or battery) moving these processes UPHILL. But there IS an OBVIOUS powerful energy source (analogous to the battery example) driving all life on earth- SUNLIGHT! The earth receives from the sun some 51 billion kilowatts EVERY SECOND! Indeed, it is sunlight that drives the process of photosynthesis within plants, kicking off a food chain that provides the energy for all life. As the most elementary science experiment will demonstrate: Remove all sunlight from a plant for an extended period--and it will grow sickly (run downhill) and then die. What has angered scientists the most - is that after refuting claims of creationists (such as Morris' on the Second Law of Thermodynamics) the latter often repeat their claims before religious audiences, as if no one had ever raised any serious scientific objections to them. This has led many scientists to charge creationists such as Morris as being dishonest- out to promote their ideology at any cost, including the truth! History of the Development of the Theory of Evolution--The Discovery of Fossils During the early eighteenth century, the discovery of ancient fossils uncovered from mining and canal building operations was seen as support for the biblical account of a great Flood. However, further scrutiny showed that there wasn't one, but MANY layers of sediment coverings--and that the same fossils were not randomly distributed in every layer. Instead, each layer contained a completely different set of fossils, with simple, bizarre-looking forms of life (such as the trilobites) at the lowest layers, and the most modern looking forms of life at the newest levels. Based on this observation, some creationists concluded there must have been NOT one --but a whole series of creations--each of which were swept away by a God-directed flood. But skeptics (including religious skeptics) disagreed, arguing that this was instead evidence for evolution. They reasoned that the most primitive creatures from earth's history were found at the base, and that some of these creatures had evolved into more complex, modern looking forms found in the highest strata. It could also be observed that closely related species typically lived in adjacent regions on the earth. On the flip side, DISTANTLY related species usually lived geographically far apart, and separated by some barrier such as a mountain range or body of water. That is, when great landmasses were separated for millions of years--as was the case in Australia-- radically different species (such as the kangaroo and platypus) evolved only in that locality. In 1859, Charles Darwin published his book, THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES. In it, he accumulated a large collection of data that pointed towards the evolutionary development of plant and animal life. Darwin then theorized on the "CAUSE" of the data he had accumulated. The result was his theory on the evolution of species by means of natural selection. Darwin's theory of evolution held that all organisms naturally develop SMALL mutations over LONG periods of time. Although the majority of these mutations would be of no real consequence, in some cases these mutations would result in giving the new organism a special advantage in survival in nature. Over a long period of time, Darwin believed that small mutations eventually accumulated until a new species evolved. (A new species occurs by definition when a member from the new species cannot mate and produce fertile offspring with a member from the old species. The classic example always given is that of a horse and a donkey than can produce a mule. Because the mule is sterile, the horse and donkey are considered separate but closely related species.) Darwin was careful to point out that his theory of the CAUSE of evolution was a "theory"--and that, at worst, it was a better approximation of the true cause of evolution than the belief in separate creations. In his THE DESCENT OF MAN, he wrote: "I have two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been [instead] the chief agent of change...Hence if I have erred in... having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power...I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." Much of the scientific community slowly came to agree with Darwin's factual findings in regards to evolution in animals. Many religious scientists accepted a random element in the evolution of some animals - although they still insisted humans did NOT evolve through evolution - but were created specially and uniquely from the other animals and endowed with superior intelligence and morality. (1) Criticism of Darwinism Even in Darwin's day, critics noticed one important WEAKNESS with Darwin's theory of evolutionary change. That is, "missing links" proving GRADUAL changes from one fossil form to the next, could not always be found. Even Darwin recognized this, and stated this concern in the ORIGIN OF SPECIES: "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." (p. 280) Early Darwinian evolutionists, argued that that these missing links occurred because the fossil record was too sparse. Over time, many believed that these "missing links" would eventually be found. However, after a century looking for these, many "missing links" had STILL not been found. One explanation is that these links exist, but that we may never find them because nature preserves so few ancient fossils - especially those that are hundreds of thousands even millions of years old. According to Michael Ruse on this subject, "Although it is conceded that there are many gaps in the fossil record, it is countered, nevertheless, that there is a sizable number of well- established gradual changes to be found in the record. Hence, given all the factors making fossilization improbable, Darwinism remains totally plausible. To ask for more than this from the fossil record is unreasonable." Other scientists are not so convinced, and have argued that possibly Darwin's theory needs to be "refined" to account for missing links. RELIGIOUS scientists hold that a "miracle" by God could best explain some of the "missing links" in the fossil record from one species to a later related one. Other scientists have sought to "refine" Darwin's theory to explain statistically why evolution need NOT occur gradually. The most important of these natural theories was "punctuated equilibrium"-which was proposed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge. According to "punctuated equilibrium", evolution did not occur smoothly over time - instead it occurred in sudden bursts within "a small sub-population" living in "an isolated area at the periphery" of the main line of species. That is, this theory holds that evolution tends to occur in smaller groups that break away from the main group and become geographically isolated. The main population continues on with or without the new evolved features. Fewer fossils are left behind of the smaller group, but generations later, they may have successfully reproduced into a large group which left behind a larger fossil record (increasing the likelihood of being discovered). Gould has insisted his theory of punctuated equilibrium does NOT replace Darwin's theory of natural selection as the mechanism of evolutionary change. Instead it operates side-by-side Darwin's theory of natural selection: "...natural selection is not the only cause of evolutionary change (and may in may cases, be overshadowed by other forces.)...Darwin himself strongly emphasized the multifactorial nature of evolutionary change and warned against too exclusive a reliance on natural selection, by placing the following statement ... at the very end of his introduction: 'I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive, means of modification." (Stephen Jay Gould, "The Evolution of Life on the Earth", SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, October 1994, p 85) Gould/Eldredge's "punctuated equilibrium" mechanism for evolution came under fierce attack when it was first proposed. It is common for scientists to disagree with each other--often vigorously and with heated exchange over even the smallest details. Still, there appeared to be forces at work because of the IDEOLOGICAL implications of the punctuated equilibrium theory. That is, because this theory clearly interpreted mutations along a more RANDOM direction (as merely one of many branches on a thick bush of life), it offended not only the religious view of human life as DIVINELY DIRECTED, but also Romantics (including atheist communists - See Section V, Chapter 20) who viewed evolution as PROGRESSIVE. For example, it did not support the view that humans are at the top of the chain of life, constantly progressing over time and evolving into ever-higher forms (with larger brain craniums for example.) Another factor that probably led to the fierce controversy of the theory of punctuated equilibrium was its timing. When the theory was publicized in the early 1980s, Creationists were busy lobbying state legislatures to demand that the theory of Creation be taught in science classes. Thus, creationists sought to take advantage of the scientific debates and arguments over theories for the MECHANISM of evolution (such as the theory of punctuated equilibrium) in an attempt to discredit the entire basis of evolution itself. Their strategy was to use the confusion as a smokescreen-- so that they could substitute in its place the "scientific" theory of creationism. Examples in Biology that Point to Evolution - not Special Creation. There are other subtle implications in taking a literalist position of the Bible in the area of biology. For if man was "made in God's image" then he should be a PERFECT creation. Thus, the following biological facts WOULD need to be re-explained using creationist science: * THE HUMAN EYE- It is true that the eye performs magnificently as a camera. Yet, it is NOT a "perfect" design. Indeed The blind spot that occurs in human's vision is due to the fact that the photoreceptor cells in our retina are "wired in backwards". This means the nerves from the retina are in FRONT OF and alongside of the source light--instead of leading AWAY from the light. This design SCREENS out some of the incoming light, and requires the nerves to travel over the photoreceptor cells on the surface of the retina, to a hole in the back of the retina itself--creating a BLIND SPOT. Our brain compensates for this blind spot and gives us the sensation of a uniform range of vision. However objects that fall in line with the blind spot are just not seen. Not all creatures have this design problem. The squid is heralded by scientists to have the most beautifully constructed eyes. Among other features, the nerves in squids are situated leading BEHIND the photoreceptor cells. * THE HUMAN FETUS - The fertilized egg, which starts off as a single cell, "looks" similar in form to a single-celled protozoa. As the fertilized egg multiplies, its appearance is again strikingly similar to certain forms of MULTI-celled protozoan (such as the Volvox). There are several tell-tale signs of an evolutionary pattern in the human fetus. Human fetuses that are one week old, have well-developed tails. A yolk sac is also present in human fetuses. Although devoid of nourishment (ie the placenta connects the developing fetus to the mother's nourishment), it appears similar in form to the yolk sac of egg-laying animals--which DO get their nourishment from this structure. Some scientists believe that the development of the human fetus shows traces of its evolutionary history from the animal kingdom. After the human fetus is five weeks old and about half a centimeter long, it looks similar in appearance to our earliest vertebrate ancestor--the fish. The human fetus has a long tail, a heart with only two chambers in it, and four slits on the side of the neck--similar to fish. The tail later develops into the coccyx. The gill- like structures subsequently develop into parts of the hearing/breathing/voice apparatus for humans. At the end of the third month, the eyes, which are positioned along the sides of the head, again like a fish, migrate towards the front of the head. At a later stage, the fetus looks similar in form to a chicken. In the fifth month, the human embryo develops a coating of fur-- called lanugo, which is usually shed by the eight month. Even after birth, there are vestigial structures in humans that suggest that man evolved from other animals. Humans have ear muscles (auricularis) which can barely be moved if at all, and which appear to serve NO function. In monkeys, these same ear muscles are used to move the ears in all directions-- to aid in locating the source of distant sounds. Humans also possess a complete set of muscles on their rear--which in animals is used to wag a tail. The remnant bones from a tail, (the coccyx or "tail bone"), often exists buried deep in the buttocks of humans. Some babies are born with these bones fully extended into tails.--Doctors surgically remove them shortly after birth. Hair on the backs of humans slant in the same direction as that on the back regions of dogs. Attached to the base of each hair are tiny muscle fibers, which when contracted, can cause the hairs to stand up, producing "goose" bumps. These are involuntary muscles--ie are controlled by the autonomic nervous system. When one is frightened, or placed under great emotional stress, these hairs can be seen to stand up, especially along the spine. The common phrase, "I felt chills run up and down my spine" has a comparable physiological basis. A similar reaction can be observed in cats and dogs when they are reacting to an attack. "MISTAKES" in Babies Some scientists believe that the presence of genetic "mistakes" in human babies point to an evolutionary "nonhuman" ancestry. For example, sometimes babies are born with fully developed tails, other times with a complete coat of hair. (Stories of the "wolf man" have arisen from real-life cases of individuals who grew hair all over their body.) On rare occasions, remnants of gill slits will occur in the neck regions of babies. Sometimes additional nipples occur in humans. These are almost always aligned along the milk ridge, just as they are in animals, which develop multiple nipples along these lines to support multiple births. Terrible birth defects and deformities occur in ALL cultures-sometimes producing heartbreaking cases of children being born that look like monsters. For almost every structure in the human body someone, somewhere has been born with this missing or malformed--ranging from malformed organs and limbs, to brain disorders to malfunctioning in the immunity system. There have been cases of babies born without major sections of their brain, holes in their hearts, two hearts, etc. In humans it is well known that two "XX" shaped sex chromosomes produce a female, while an "X" plus a "Y" sex chromosome produce a male. Yet sometimes the it is not so easy to distinguish an "XX" from an "XY" --ie it can be difficult to tell an "X" sex chromosome from a "Y" -- because the "Y" has a short stub, making it look halfway between an "X" and a "Y". When doctors deliver a baby genetically "in between" a boy and a girl, in the past they almost always operated on the child to make it a "girl". (Today, this operation has become more controversial and the parents may choose whether or not to perform the operation.) There are some thousands of such babies--known as "pseudo-hermaphrodites" in the medical profession, born each year with vestiges of both male and female organs--For example, having a vagina and female external organs, but instead of the typical female internal organs such as ovaries and fallopian tubes, they had male seminal vesicles and testicles. Similar Anatomy and Composition No matter what system is examined between man and the other animal life forms--be it bones, muscles, digestive systems, circulatory systems, etc, there are basic structural and functional similarities. Evolutionists believe these similarities are often not due to mere chance--but may suggest a common origin. While developing his theory of evolution, Charles Darwin was struck by the coincidence: "that the hand of a man formed for grasping, that of a mole for digging, the leg of the horse, the paddle of the porpoise, and the wing of the bat, should all be constructed on the same pattern, and should include the same bones in the same relative positions." Of course, it could also be argued that it was God's GRAND DESIGN to create creatures with similar structures! However, one problem with attributing ALL similar structures to a divine cause is that sometimes these structures are poorly designed. Steven Jay Gould uses the example of a panda's "thumb" to demonstrate this: the panda has a poorly functioning thumb because this evolved relatively late from a regular finger bone. Gould reasons, if the panda was SPECIALLY created by God, why wasn't the panda given a thumb that was well-designed for its task? Not only do many animals share major structural similarities, essentially all animals are comprised of the same chemical elements and compounds. An interesting comparison has been made between the chlorophyll molecule in plants (which allows plants to manufacture sugars using sunlight) to Heme (the active molecule in the red blood cells of animals and man). The only difference is that in plants there is a magnesium atom in the center of chlorophyll, while in animals there is an iron atom in the center of heme -- otherwise the structure of the "poryphin" molecule is essentially identical. The body fluids of humans and animals are similar in salt content. Some scientists see this as evidence that animals including man, originally developed in salty seas, and only later migrated into fresh water where some forms entered on the land. Various enzymes present in the digestive tracks of humans are identical to those in other animals. Scientific studies have shown that the more similar species are to one another, the more closely their immunology and biochemical compositions match when tested against each other. It is because of their similarity to humans, that scientists are able to use animals to test for the potential impact of drugs and chemicals on humans. Studies at the Genetic Level of Humans Scientists believe there they are seeing another confirmation of evolution- at the GENETIC level of humans and plants. Studies comparing human DNA with that of apes, monkeys and other animals are believed to correspond to how closely related they are to each other. For example, DNA studies show that human beings and chimps share roughly 98 per cent of the same molecular material; with humans and gorillas sharing about 97 per cent. (Jared Diamond, THE THIRD CHIMPANZEE, Harper Perennial, 1992, p 23). Another study has shown that "human and chimp hemoglobins contain exactly the same sequence of 287 amino acids...G]orilla hemoglobin was found to differ by only two amino acid substitutions." (Kevin McKean, "Reading the Molecular Clock", DISCOVER, July 1983, pp28-9). Delving down even further to look at specific DNA/RNA sequences of protein chains, genetic researchers believe they see millions of combinations of DNA sequences which are repetitive or nonsense--and therefore passive, or useless. Indeed, as the Genome Project has confirmed (which has completed a massive computerized genetic database of all the base pairs of DNA in human chromosomes), only about 2-5 percent of human DNA is believed to be composed of genes. (Genes contain the instructions to make proteins). The rest of the 95- 98% of genetic material is regulatory sequences, old nonfunctioning genes or most common of all: non-coding "junk". Bob Waterson, Director of the Genome Center at Washington University in the U.S. explained it this way: "the distribution of genes on mammalian chromosomes is uneven, making for a striking appearance . . . in some regions, genes are crowded together much like buildings in urban centers. In other areas, genes are spread over the vast expanses like farmhouses on the prairie. And then there are large tracts of desert, where only non-coding 'junk DNA' can be found. Each region tells a unique story about the history of our species and what makes us tick." Sometimes the genes are not contiguous - but stop and start amid junk genetic base pair sequences between them (creating a challenge to detect them at all even using super computers.) Even more interestingly: Large stretches of the human genome show sections that look as if viruses were incorporated into them-- probably millions of years ago through infections. Hundreds of genes (encoding at least 223 proteins) appear to be identical to those of bacteria. It has been estimated that roughly 50% of the number of genes in humans is identical to those in yeast. (Henry Gee, "A Journey into the Genome: What's There", Nature News Service/Macmillan Magazine LTD. February 12, 2001) Although the genome project is providing some insights into our human origins-- its next step is to discover the link between gene combinations and genetic defects and diseases, with the goal of someday developing better medicines and cures. Has Science Explained Whether Life could be Formed Without Divine Intervention? Probably Not (Although Some Would Argue "Not Yet") In 1953, Stanley Miller, a graduate student in biochemistry, built an apparatus that he filled with water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen to simulate the atmosphere of early earth. The mixture was kept circulating by continuously boiling and condensing water. The gases were then passed through a chamber containing two electrodes with a spark passing between them (simulating the electrical discharges from lightening). By the end of the week, Miller had produced several amino acids as well as some other organic molecules. Researchers have reproduced Miller's work, and varying his procedures, have created essentially all the small molecules that are associated with life-- including all the amino acids used in protein synthesis and all the pruines and pyrimidines used in nucleic acid synthesis. Still, this primeval soup theory cannot account for how polymers - the basis of life itself - could be assembled. New theories have suggested these formed on solid, mineral surfaces that protected them from degradation (some of which has been simulated in the lab). But there are other problems with simulating life in the test tube: all metabolism depends on enzymes and, until recently, every enzyme has turned out to be a protein. Proteins are synthesized from information encoded in DNA and translated into mRNA. So here is a chicken-and-egg dilemma: The synthesis of DNA and RNA requires proteins. But proteins cannot be made without nucleic acids and nucleic acids cannot be made without proteins. The discovery that certain RNA molecules have enzymatic activity provides a possible solution. These RNA molecules - called ribozymes - incorporate both the features required of life: storage and the ability to act as catalysts. But there still remains the problem that no ribozyme in nature has yet been found that can replicate itself! (The discussion of this topic borrows heavily from John Kimball's "The Origin of Life: Abiotic Synthesis of Organic Molecules", BIOLOGY, sixth edition, 1994.) There are theories to get around this - but they are still just that-- theories! Therefore while some scientists are convinced that life can occur naturally without divine intervention - no one has shown EXACTLY how (as of this writing) this can take place. Many will argue they are close - but how close? I remember a famous cartoon showing a group of scientists drawing some complicated formulas on a chalkboard to describe how life began. They were stuck at a point marked by an "X"-which they "solved" by drawing an arrow out to the side with the notation: "And here a miracle occurred!" But even if a "miracle" is deemed to be behind the creation of life -- this general fact would not, by itself, prove "which" of the world's largest religions had tapped into its "divine source". Indeed, perhaps "all" of them have been tapping into this mystical source; but then again, it could be "none" of them. Some attribute life to extra-terrestrial sources. (Of course this begs the question where did the aliens come from.) Still, it would be very exciting (even exhilarating for most people!) to find scientific confirmation of a "genuine" miracle--one that could not occur randomly and naturally over billion of years!! Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) More recently, a new modified version of Creationism has emerged. Unlike their "young earth" counterparts who insist the earth was created in six days (exactly as stated in Genesis), these "intelligent design" creationists allow that the earth may be billions of years old and that some evolution may have been possible. However, intelligent design creationists argue that Darwinian theory STILL cannot, without divine assistance, explain the complexity nor morality of life. Typically intelligent design creationists refrain from a direct attack on physical science, concentrating instead on trying to demonstrate Darwinian natural selection is wrong because it is materialistic (i.e., denies a role to a supernatural cause) or because it allegedly fails to explain all the biological facts. The strategy of intelligent design creationism is to introduce insolvable problems with Darwinian evolution, with the assumption that the only other valid alternative "must be" divine creation. Unlike many young-earth creationists, some of the intelligent design creationists have sound credentials. Phillip Johnson is a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, and Michael Behe is a biochemist at LeHigh University. In his book, Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe coined the phrase "irreducibly complex" to argue that a system of well-matched, interacting parts could not (through mere chance) easily combine to form a complex system (whereby the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning.) (See Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, (New York: The Free Press, 1996). In Behe's words, "no law of physics automatically rules out the chance origin of even the most intricate IC [irreducibly complex] system. As complexity increases, however, the odds become so abysmally low that we reject chance as an explanation." Evolutionists have cried foul on a number of accounts. (I have provided only a small sample here.) Unlike a manufactured watch, the cell is not an artifact, but acts in accordance with chemical interactions that can only organize in a selected number of ways. In addition, there are redundant (or repeated) complex biochemical systems in organisms. Indeed, evolutionists view these redundancies as the solution to Behe's own challenge: for redundant biochemical systems co- exist with other functioning systems and structures, laying either unused, or partially or wholly used in multiple functions at any one time or place. Evolution removes a part or all of the functioning systems over time, replacing this with part or all of the redundant system(s) to form what Behe dubbed the "irreducibly complex" system. One example given by evolutionists for this process is the transparent protein crystalline which is used in our eyes. Crystallin is also an enzyme which acts on the stress proteins used in coping with heat shock or osmotic shock. (It is thought that the enzyme function came first, and the first eye just co-opted this useful stuff that was lying around.) (Behe agrees there are redundant biochemical systems, but still treats these as whole units as opposed to combining partially and later being phased out as obsolete. See Niall Shanks and Karl Joplin, Behe, Biochemistry, and the Invisible Hand , PHILO, Volume 4, Number 1) As for Behe's anology of the mousetrap, evolutionists argue it is not "irreducibly complex" either-- For the mousetrap can still function without all of its parts (a direct refutation of Behe's claims): For, if you press the holding bar into the board, you don't need the catch. If you mount the parts on the floor, you don't need the board. If you mount the bar vertically, you don't need a spring, since gravity will make the bar fall on the mouse. If you bend the "tail" of the spring slightly, you can fasten the holding bar under the tail, and not need the catch. In short, four of the five physical components can be eliminated. They are only there to make the trap more efficient. (see "How Can Evolution Cause Irreducibly Complex Systems", http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/evolve_irreducible.html for this and many other examples on this topic.) Intelligent design creationists insist their attacks on evolution are "scientific" Evolutionists counter, if this were true, why does one not see intelligent design creationists coming up with an example that would disprove "their" theories. Instead, their strategy is ideologically driven: To look for any weakness on evolution. Because biology is a massive field where frankly not all areas are yet fully understood (especially those areas that have had low priorities for research funding), creationists insist any lack of knowledge (or negative evidence) constitutes support for their thesis that there is a divine element, or creator, behind the scenes. Is the Theory of Evolution a "Science"? In order for a theory of human origin to be considered "scientific", it must attempt to explain ALL of the measured physical data-not just a "subset" or portion of the known data. Secondly, the theory must be rigorously tested to see if any of this data can "falsify" its premises. Any potential weaknesses must be honestly reported and evaluated. Evolutionist theories that follow ALL of these steps, are engaged in a scientific" endeavor. Darwin seemed to implicitly understand the importance of testing his theory of evolution with scientific data. When writing a friend in 1861, he made the following statement: "the change in species cannot be directly proved, and ... the doctrine must sink or swim according as it GROUPS AND EXPLAINS PHENOMENA. It is really curious how few judge it in this way, which is clearly the right way." Unlike many evolutionists, creationists have NOT attempted to seriously test their theories for ALL the data to check out if they really are true. Creationism does not attempt to explain natural phenomena in the world within a systematic framework, to tie these in with other observations and to make predictions. Instead, creationists will tell you that they already "know" the truth--that creation occurred by divine intervention EXACTLY as described in the book of Genesis. With this outlook, it is not surprising that creationists do NOT look for means to thoroughly and rigorously test their theories-- and will often even omit MAJOR criticisms that are rationally, or scientifically derived. It is this outlook, which makes creationists' theories an ideology--as opposed to a science.] Evolutionists will tell you that they have no motive for "making up" a theory of evolution--and that indeed it is the nature of science to CHANGE or modify its theory once the evidence shows this to be needed. But creationists will counter that evolution is ALSO a theory! Therefore both creationism and evolution--as "equal" theories--should be taught side by side in the science classrooms! (Note the leap of faith that all theories are "equal" scientific theories!) This has led some evolutionists to counter that "to employ this same logic", creationists should reciprocate by requiring Darwin's evolutionary theory be taught in their churches and Sunday schools. Conclusion The main reason why scientists have argued that evolution is a science (as opposed to a dogma) is because it has been such a GOOD predictor in explaining and tying together data taken from diverse scientific disciplines- -such as biology, geology, botany, paleontology and psychology. As we have seen, one can be religious AND believe in evolution (despite the claims of fundamentalist creationists). There are many religious, scientific-minded individuals who interpret the similarities in humans and animals as proof of a divine master plan--albeit one where God acts through evolution (and possibly interfering at crucial stages-- especially at the "human" stage.) As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, those religious individuals who view the Bible as expressing religious and moral themes (as opposed to literal scientific or historical facts) find no serious conflict between religion and evolution. Scientists and skeptics can also be religious (although they tend not to be fundamentalist). For example, Martin Gardner, one of the original founders of the Skeptic movement and CSICOP, maintains for himself the hopes of a creator and a future existence after death. The diversity of opinion on this and other topics is very healthy for an open society! For there is the danger of scientists (as well as theologians) of becoming too DOGMATIC and/or SLOPPY to appropriately test their assertions and theories. Even when a scientific theory "checks out", such inquiry and discussion can lead towards new insights of scientific principles. Of course, this means fundamentalists/creationists should be obligated to do the same - to "prove" their position before the open public without the self- deception that their ideology is more important than honesty and the search for truth. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) As discussed in Section V, Chapter 19, Darwin's theories also caught the imagination of progressive-minded individuals (both religious and non-religious) who saw his mechanism for natural selection as a means whereby the human race would naturally IMPROVE over the course of future generations. Victorian England used the "Survival of the Fittest" model of evolution to promote competitive capitalism, arguing this would lead to the best form of economics in the world. Extremist ideological organizations, including BOTH Nazi's and communists, would later seize upon Darwin's theories-- radically interpreting them along different moral lines to support their own individual ideologies: Nazis saw the Aryan race as the "fittest" human stock who DESERVED to rule the world. Likewise, Russian communists adapted Darwin's views to justify a utopian view whereby society would naturally improve after a class struggle between the "haves" and the "have-nots". None of these views were truly "scientific"-for as was discussed natural selection does not presuppose the "fittest" survive, only that a species develops some mechanism that allows it to survive (via large numbers of offspring, an offensive or poisonous odor, color camouflage, etc). It can be easily by the number of different ways the "survival of the fittest" model was twisted -that it was the ideology of justifying the "fittest" that came first, not as any consequence or derivation of the true model of natural selection. (2) It has been claimed that "other" biblical verses show the earth was not thought to be flat after all. In these two verses, the earth is described as a "circle": * "[God] has described a circle upon the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness." (Job 26:10) (RSV) "When [God] established the heavens, I was there: when he drew a circle on the face of the deep:" (Proverbs 8:27) (RSV) A circle though is not a sphere. A circle is a two-dimensional figure—which floating out in space would be – flat! One apologetic response I have seen claimed that a "circle" was only used because the ancient hebrews had no word for sphere. But then the word "ball" would have been a closer term than "circle" in describing the geometry of the earth. Indeed, the reason why there is no ancient hebrew word for "sphere" is (obviously) because the ancient hebrews did not conceive of a sphere shape in nature. *Another apologetic response has been to splice two verses in Luke together to "infer" Jesus would return to earth in day and nighttime: per Luke 17:30:"...so it will be on the day when the Son of man is revealed. 31: On that day, let him who is on the housetop, with is goods in the house, not come down to take them away ...34: I tell you, in that night there will be two men in one bed; one will be taken and the other left." That is, this interpretation pieces these two verses together to imply there is day and night SIMULATNEOUSLY on the Day of Judgment--And you can only have a day and night simultaneously on a spherical world. But this is very contrived: A better interpretation of these two verses is that Doomsday would START in daytime, continuing on through the night. That is why there are two separate verses—one set in daylight, ANOTHER at nighttime.