Wednesday, November 30, 2011

The Six Days of Creation and Evolutionary Theory: Are They Compatible?

by Callie Joubert and Philip du Toit

November 23, 2011

Abstract

In the last two decades there has been a growing controversy in the church over the six Days of Creation recorded in Genesis 1 and evolutionary theory. Some Christians, who accepted the idea of billions of years as propounded by most scientists, claimed that no conflict exists between Christianity and evolutionary theory. Those who make that claim are not considering the biblical text carefully enough. In order to deal with some of the issues involved, Section I presents a review of statements of some of the most eminent biologists living today and the data of two major experimental studies. Section II focuses on questions/issues that are featured or are neglected when Christians attempt to reconcile scientific theories with biblical teaching on the origin of Creation. What is at stake, if the idea of billions of years creation is true, is nothing less than the authority of Scripture and the character of God. Section III presents our reasons to conclude that what lies behind this conflict is two kinds of wisdom. The aim is to give theistic evolutionists and progressive Christians some things to consider.

Keywords: Atheists, authority, creation, evolution, naturalism, physicalism, scientism, wisdom, worldviews

Introduction

When Creationists object to Darwinian evolution, they have mainly two things in mind: (1) the widespread message that scientific thought and explanations as informed by evolutionary theory make God irrelevant to the origin of Creation and the development of life on Earth, and (2) the claim that evolutionary theory and Scripture are not in conflict. These objections are linked to at least three core doctrines of Darwin’s theory: (a) the appearance of organic beings through natural processes, (b) gradual evolution over millions of years, and (c) that human beings are not the work of a separate act of creation as stated in the Genesis record of Creation but have descended along with other mammals from a common ancestor.
For an increasing number of Christians—“theistic evolutionists”—these objections are unnecessary; Scripture and evolutionary theory are completely compatible, they say.¹ And a U.S. Judge, who professed to believe in God, ruled this way in 2005 (Kitzmiller et al. 2005).
In what follows, Section I presents a review of statements by some of the most eminent biologists living today, together with the data of two major experimental studies, in order to show that the claim that no conflict exists between biblical Christianity and proponents of evolutionary theory is false.² Section II focuses on questions/issues that are featured or are neglected when Christians attempt to reconcile evolutionary theory with the biblical data on the origin of Creation. What is at stake, if the idea of billions of years of evolution is true, is nothing less than the authority of Scripture and the character of God. The aim in Section III is to give us reasons to think that what lies behind this conflict is two kinds of wisdom, which is not a mere coincidence.

Section I: What do the scientists say?³

Prominent University of Chicago biology professor Jerry Coyne (2009) wrote that science delivered severe blows to “humanity’s theistic worldview” since 1859, when Darwin demolished in 545 pages of On the Origin of Species “the comforting notion that we are unique among all species – the supreme object of God’s creation . . . like all species, we are the result of a purely natural and material process” (p. 34). One of the persons who testified during the Dover court case referred to above was theologian John Haught. Haught held not only that life may have evolved, but also that “the process was really masterminded by God . . .” In other words, as Professor Coyne noted, “This progressivist and purpose-driven view of evolution, rejected by most scientists, has been embraced by Haught and other theologians” (ibid).
In contrast to Haught, who believes that Darwinism and a vaguely defined Christianity are fully compatible, the late Harvard University geology professor Stephen Jay Gould (1991) rejected the idea that “evolution indicates divine intent in our origin” (p. 15); human beings were “pitiful latecomers in the last microsecond of our planetary year” (p. 18). Elsewhere he added that no “scientific revolution can match Darwin’s discovery in degree of upset . . . Evolution substituted a naturalistic explanation of cold comfort for our former conviction that a benevolent deity fashioned us directly in his own image . . .” (Gould 2001, p. xi).
For biology professor Scott Todd (1999) the “crucial difference between what the creationists believe and what the proponents of evolutionary theory accept concerns the issue of whether the origins of life were driven by randomness or by an intelligent creator” (p. 423). In other words, evolutionary theory and the belief in God as the intelligent Creator of this world are diametrically opposed opposites. It is because Darwin’s “theory of natural selection provided a naturalistic account of the origin of species – an explanation for design without a designer” (Stewart-Williams 2004, p. 19). For prominent biologist Francisco Ayala (2007), “Darwin’s greatest contribution to science” was that he paved the way for natural laws to create what is real, therefore, that “organisms could now be explained . . . as the result of natural processes, without recourse to an Intelligent Designer” (p. 8567). Professor Nigel Williams (2008) put it bluntly: Darwin “destroyed the strongest evidence left in the nineteenth century for the existence of a deity” (p. R579). Historian of science Professor I. B. Cohen (1985) concluded that the “consequence of this revolution was a systematic rethinking of the nature of the world, of man, and of human institutions . . .” (p. 285).
It seems, then, that if God is not “needed” to explain the Creation, people are quick to conclude that He does not exist. Most Darwin scholars agree that Darwin did little to discourage arguments against religion. The fact of the matter is, he recommended an indirect strategy to convert people to atheism. In 1880, in a letter to atheist Edward Aveling (1883), Darwin noted that “direct arguments against christianity [sic] and theism” have hardly an effect on the public. The task “is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follow from the advance of science [i.e., evolution]” (pp. 4–5).
But what about those who wish to reconcile evolutionary theory with the Scriptures? What do the atheist evolutionists say about them? Professor Coyne (2009) wrote that he does not deny the existence of

religious scientists and Darwinian churchgoers. But that does not mean that faith and science are compatible, except in the trivial sense that both attitudes can be simultaneously embraced by a single human mind. (It is like saying that marriage and adultery are compatible because married people are adulterers) (p. 33).

In the words of Cornell University professor William Provine (1988):

Some [scientists], along with many liberal theologians, suggest that God set up the universe in the beginning and/or works through the laws of nature. This silly way of trying to have one’s cake and eat it too amounts to deism . . . Show me a person who says that science and religion are compatible, and I will show you a person who (1) is an effective atheist, or (2) believes things demonstrably unscientific, or (3) asserts the existence of entities or processes for which no shred of evidence exists (p. 10).

Astrophysicist Steven Weinberg (2008) stated that the

worldview of science is rather chilling. Not only do we not find any point to life laid out for us in nature, no objective basis for our moral principles, no correspondence between what we think is the moral law and the laws of nature . . . [Our emotions and love, e.g.,] are made possible by chemical processes in our brains that are what they are as a result of natural selection acting on chance mutations over millions of years . . . . Living without God isn’t easy. But its very difficulty offers one other consolation – that there is a certain honor . . . in facing up to our condition without despair and without wishful thinking – with good humor, but without God (p. 1).

Just how widespread are the views expressed by these evolutionary scientists quoted above? And what are those views representative of?

The “scientific” worldview

The views expressed by these scientists are representative of what naturalist philosopher John Searle (1992) referred to as “our ‘scientific’ world view” (p. 85). About this worldview he said:

Some features of this world view are very tentative, others well established. At least two features of it are so fundamental and so well established as to be no longer optional for reasonably well-educated citizens of the present era; indeed they are in large part constitutive of the modern world view. These are the atomic theory of matter and the evolutionary theory of biology . . .[A]t present the evidence is so overwhelming that they are not simply up for grabs (p. 86).

Scientific studies and surveys of eminent evolutionists found that the scientists quoted above aligned themselves with Searle’s worldview. For example, a study conducted by Jesse Preston and Nicholas Epley (2009) concluded that “science and religion have come into conflict repeatedly throughout history, and one simple reason for this is the two offer competing explanations for many of the same phenomena” (p. 238). Interestingly enough, the researchers found that increasing the value of one decreases the value of the other because the “two ideologies are inherently opposed,” and “belief in one necessarily undermines belief in the other” (ibid).
Jerry Bergman (2010) drew attention to Greg Graffin (2004) who completed his PhD in evolutionary biology under supervision of Provine (quoted earlier) and focused his research on the religious beliefs of leading evolutionary biologists (pp. 149-150). What he found was that 98.7% of his respondents rejected a traditional theistic worldview and became functional atheists. Over 84% of the scientists that returned his questionnaire rejected all theistic religions and most concluded that evolution serves as a replacement for theism. Almost none of the scientists even tried to match Darwinism with theism, the two worldviews the US judge ruled “in no way conflicts” (Kitzmiller et al. 2005, p. 136). Put in the reverse, almost all the scientists in his study recognized the unbridgeable gap between evolution and theism, to say nothing of biblical Christianity.
But are there no objections to the evolutionary views of scientists?

Evolution as anti-science

Nobel laureate in physics Robert Laughlin (2005) observed that evolutionary theory is actually anti-science, which involves explanations that have

no implications and cannot be tested. I call such logical dead ends antitheories . . .: they stop thinking rather than stimulate it . . . . Biology has plenty of theories [to explain origins]. They are just not discussed – or scrutinized – in public (pp. 168–169).

In other words, Darwinian evolution has been put forward as an explanatory theory of everything or as “an explanation for events for which no explanation as of yet exists. This implies that a valid scientific explanation does exist, which may discourage scientific investigation to find the real explanation” (Bergman 2010, p.150). Todd (1999) put it this way: “[I]t should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolution, has not disproved God’s existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it” (p. 423). Why not? Todd says, “[Even if] all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic” (ibid). In 1929 prominent evolutionist D.M.S. Watson wrote that evolution “is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or . . . is supported by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible” (pp. 231–233).
But what if there is a lack of evidence in favor of evolutionary theory? Would scientists be ready to forego evolutionary theory? Richard Dawkins (2006) said that “I may not always be right, but I care passionately about what is true and I never say anything that I do not believe to be right,” (p. xviii) but then, “even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory . . . we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories” (p. 287). Dawkins is no more than an echo of Charles Darwin. Darwin acknowledged that he would maintain his view of the origin of humans by means of the mindless processes of nature, “even if it were unsupported by other facts or arguments” (Darwin 1859, p. 91). “Even if”? This reflects a highly anti-scientific attitude. Naturally Darwin (with a degree in “divinity”) would have been very conscious of what his evolutionary theory implies; amongst other things, a radical rejection of biblical teaching on the creation of the world and the origin of life. In November 1838, 21 years before The Origin of Species (1859) and 33 years before The Descent of Man (1871) appeared in print, Darwin already wrote his decision in his “N Notebook” (which was not intended for public knowledge): “I will never allow that because there is a chasm between man . . . and animals that man has a different origin [i.e., that humans were separately created from animals]” (Wiker 2002, p. 235).
It is reasonable to conclude that Darwin, with his indirect approach to atheism, banished God from the minds of many scientists. This is precisely how Provine (1994) saw it:

When Darwin deduced the theory of natural selection to explain the adaptations in which he had previously seen the handiwork of God, he knew he was committing cultural murder. He understood immediately that if natural selection explained adaptations, and evolution by descent were true, then the argument from design was dead and all that went with it, namely the existence of a personal god, free will, life after death, immutable moral laws, and ultimate meaning in life (p. 30).

It should be clear beyond doubt that Judge Jones was grossly uninformed or very misleading when he concluded in the Dover trial that evolutionary theory “in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator” (Kitzmiller et al. 2005, p. 136). It makes it reasonable to think the same about Christians who maintain the Judge’s conclusion. However, some continue to ignore it. A single example in the context of neuroscience will illustrate the point.

Professor Nancey Murphy

From studies of the brain has emerged the claim that a human person is only a material, biological body (organism) and brain, nothing more, and nothing less. This view of the human person leads to a very important question. Is it the neuroscientific discoveries themselves that lead to this view, or is it the interpretation of those discoveries? Much available evidence indicates that the widespread naturalism, scientism and physicalism control interpretations of neuroscientific research findings.
Philosopher and theologian Nancey Murphy (2006) is representative in this regard: “My central thesis is this . . . we are our bodies – there is no additional metaphysical element such as a mind or soul or spirit” (p. ix). Elsewhere she stated,

[N]euroscience is now completing the Darwinian revolution, bringing the mind into the purview of biology. My claim, in short, is this: all of the human capacities once attributed to the immaterial mind or soul are now yielding to the insights of neurobiology . . . . [W]e have to accept the fact that God has to do with brains – crude as this may sound (Murphy, undated CTI Reflections, pp. 88, 96. Cf. Brown and Jeeves 1998).

About science she said,

[F]or better or for worse, we have inherited a view of science as methodologically atheistic, meaning that science . . . seeks naturalistic explanations for all natural processes. Christians and atheists alike must pursue scientific questions in our era without invoking a creator . . . anyone who attributes the characteristics of living things to creative intelligence has by definition stepped into the arena of either metaphysics or theology (Murphy, in Baird and Rosenbaum 2007, pp. 194, 195).

If scientism (the view that science is our highest, if not only, source of knowledge) is true, then Scripture cannot make an appeal to knowledge. At most, if it has anything to say about the soul, it has to wait until validated and accepted by the scientific community. Murphy admitted that she could have called her position “nonreductive materialism,” (2006, p. 116) but prefer “nonreductive physicalism,” (2005, p. 116) because the word “physicalism” indicates her agreement with the scientists and philosophers who hold that it is not necessary to postulate a metaphysical (immaterial) soul or mind in addition to the material body/brain.
“Christian” physicalists (the new name for materialists) suggested accordingly a physicalist theology. “By this [they] mean a Biblical and theological anthropology which can sustain a physicalist view of humans without loss or degradation of Biblical teachings, theological substance or critical doctrines” (Brown and Jeeves 1999, p. 6). A review of criticisms advanced against Christian physicalists show precisely the opposite of what they set out to accomplish. If their thesis, that the human person is identical to his or her body/brain, is true, then it follows that (1) sameness of identity through change will be impossible, which means that the resurrection and life after death will be incoherent notions (Delfino 2005), (2) the existence of angels, Satan and demons become an illusion (Garcia 2000), that (3) free will and eternal life will be incompatible with Christian physicalism (Larmer 2000), and most important of all, (4) the Incarnation of Christ cannot be true (Siemans 2005).
These criticisms revealed the exact opposite of what theologian Charles Hodge (1797–1878) concluded in his theology text in 1871, when justifying his compromise with millions of years (while rejecting Darwinian evolution): “The Church has been forced more than once to alter her interpretation of the Bible to accommodate the discoveries of science. But this has been done without doing violence to the Scriptures or in any degree impairing their authority” (1997, p. I:573). In other words, what the critics have shown is that the debate between Christians who adopt Darwinian evolution and their critics must not be construed as a mere difference in hermeneutics (interpretation) of Scripture. It cuts far deeper.
The facts are threefold: First, the common claim that no conflict exists between biblical creation (as taught in Genesis) and the claims of evolutionists (Christian or secular) is contradicted by the evidence. Second, just as it is impossible to believe that a single statement of fact (a proposition) can be both true and false at the same time, likewise one cannot logically and simultaneously believe in two contradictory explanations of the Creation and the origin of life. Either God created life, and Scripture is true, or mindless natural processes did, and evolutionism is true. But not both! Finally, the conflict is in essence a conflict of authority that involves the character of God and, as we will see in Section III, two inherently opposed kinds of wisdom.

Section II: Scripture, the character of God and the six days of creation

Two common questions are (1) Why can we not accept both evolution and Christianity? and (2) Is it not possible that God used evolution as His method of creating? Before we can consider these questions, we need to ask this first: Is evolutionary theory true, if it means that life originated spontaneously from mindless chemical processes of nature in some ancient pool (abiogenesis)? If it is true, then it follows that the Bible is not the authorative Word of God and the Word of God lies. Let us therefore consider the meaning of Day in Genesis 1 in light of a series of questions.

How should deductive and inductive reasoning be understood?

One of the most prominent markers in Genesis regarding the time scale of creation in Genesis 1 is the Hebrew yom that is translated as “day” (Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 23, 31). In order to make the evolutionary worldview with its millions of years harmonize with Scripture, yom has to be interpreted in a non-literal way.
According to Genesis 1, God made the Earth in six yamim. The exegetical method (exegesis = “to lead out”), which is in essence a deductive method, would use the text and context (immediate and larger biblical context) as the starting point in order to assign meaning to any given word or expression. This is the same principle that applies for good semantics in the study of other literature. A brief look at some of the inherent constraints of the text and context of Genesis 1 will therefore be in order.

In Genesis 1 yom is modified by a number (e.g., “first day,” “second day,” etc). Outside of Genesis 1, yom is used together with a number 410 times. Without exception, in all instances, yom points to a literal 24-hour Day.
The expression (literally translated) “and evening was and morning was” (e.g., Genesis 1:5, 8) occurs 61 times outside of Genesis 1. Without exception, in all instances, it points to a literal 24-hour Day.
In the first part of Genesis 1:5, yom (day) is used together with layla (lit. laylah, night). Outside of Genesis 1, yom is used together with layla 53 times. In all these instances, it points to a part of a literal 24-hour Day (for points 1–3, see Stambaugh 1996, pp. 12, 15, 72–74, in Batten et al. 2003, p. 26).
Genesis 2:2-3 and Exodus 20:9-11 refer to literal Days. The observance of the literal seventh Day of the week, the Sabbath (Exodus 20:9–11), is rooted in the fact that the six days of Creation were six literal days (Genesis 2:2–3).

By taking these inherent constraints into account, a non-literal interpretation of yom in the immediate context of Genesis 1, would be an exemplary example of inductive reasoning, where the interpreter forces the text to fit with his preconceived notion, and disregards the context in the process. We call this “eisegesis” (“to lead in”) not exegesis (“to lead out”). If yom in Genesis 1 should be taken as non-literal, one would expect some sort of pointer within the text that would validate such a notion, but such a pointer is absent entirely. We therefore conclude that there is nothing inherent in the text of Genesis 1 that would suggest that this yom is not referring to six literal 24-hour days.
There are, however, people who try to turn the meaning of Day in Genesis 1 into something else—millions, or even billions, of years—in order to make room for the long ages of evolutionary geology. Their position is known as the “progressive creation” view, also referred to as “day-age” or “old-earth” view. The basic idea is that while life was developing through the long ages as imagined by evolutionists, God stepped in at various stages along the way to create something new that the naturalistic evolutionary process could not accomplish without His intervention. This long ages view of evolutionary geology will not work for at least three reasons. First, it presupposed that fossils point toward death and struggle for survival over million of years. Second, it therefore wrongly implies that death and struggle were realities before the creation of Adam. And third, this view conflicts with the clear teaching of Scripture.

Do you believe in a literal virgin birth and bodily resurrection of Jesus?

This question has to do with the consistency of one’s beliefs. To see why, consider this question: If you believe in the virgin birth of Jesus and His literal bodily resurrection from the dead, on what do you base these beliefs? Certainly not on scientific discoveries; no scientist saw the virgin birth or Jesus rise from the dead. We only have historical records in the Bible. So the answer to the question is, we base these beliefs on Scripture. In this regard Jesus said some interesting things.

In response to the truth of His teaching He said, “If [people] do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31).
In response to the Sadducees who did not believe in a bodily resurrection: “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures or the power of God” (Matthew 22:29).
In response to Nicodemus who questioned Him about His authority and miracles: “If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” (John 3:12)

The point should be clear. If we believe the Scriptures here—in reference to what Jesus said—in a literal sense, then why not believe that the world was created in literally six Days? The only reason to reject the words of Jesus is because scientists say it is impossible for a virgin to give birth and for a person to rise from the dead, or because the words of Jesus conflict with evolutionary theory. This creates a further problem.

Is it logically consistent to reject Moses and still believe what Jesus proclaimed in a literal sense?

In John 5 Jesus told His listeners, and, now, His readers: “[I]f you believed Moses, you would believe Me. But if you do not believe His writings, how will you believe My words?” (vv. 46–47). In other words, Jesus did not contradict the writings of Moses. Here follows a few things Jesus said about Genesis.

On the creation of human beings: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?’ Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:3–8).
It is interesting that Jesus did three things in this passage of Scripture. He showed Himself to confirm the young earth; He showed that He took Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as equally literal, therefore, showed that He regarded the record of Genesis 1 and 2 as literal history.
On Abel and the foundation of the world: “For this reason also the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, in order that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world . . . from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah . . .’” (Luke 11:49–51).
In this passage Jesus was not only referring to the beginning of Creation, but also to
Noah and a global Flood: “And just as it happened in the days of Noah . . .” (Matthew 24:37–39; cf. Genesis 6:5–8, 7).⁴
To believe in a type of Creation that would take billions of years thus calls into question the authority of Jesus. However, Jesus did not only accepted the Old Testament Scriptures as the authorative Word of God (Matthew 22:29; Mark 12:24), He also acknowledged God as Creator (Mark 13:19), and He testified of the global Flood of Noah. In fact, the New Testament also teaches about Jesus’ involvement in Creation itself (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2–3,10–12; Revelation 4:11). A non-literal interpretation of the record of Creation in Genesis 1 would therefore have to disregard Jesus’ authority on the Old Testament Scripture.

Now it is true, whether one believes in six literal Days of Creation or not will probably not directly affect one’s salvation. We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ as our Savior and Lord, not by believing in six literal days of creation. But apart from the fact that this rejection of the literal truth of Genesis might be a stepping stone of rejecting the authority of Jesus or the authority of Scripture all together, one’s beliefs about the literal record of Genesis will affect one’s discipleship, as we consider next.

Is it logically consistent to claim to be a disciple of Jesus but reject His teachings?

Many Christians today claims Jesus as their Savior while rejecting some of His teachings. That is, of course, utterly inconsistent with being a disciple of Jesus: “Jesus was therefore saying to those Jews who had believed Him, ‘If you abide in My word [teachings], then you are truly disciples of Mine’” (John 8:31). But what about the Bible, is it any different to the teachings of Jesus? Not if we accept that the Bible presents itself as the uniquely authorative and inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16). Consider the following:

Scripture claims over 3000 times that it is the Word of God.
Jesus often cited Scripture to settle a dispute (e.g., Matthew 22:23–32) and He said that Scripture “cannot be broken” (John 10:35).
Jesus often asked, “Have you not read?” (Matthew 19:4), and then He took the quoted Scripture literally.
Jesus often said, “It is written” (Matthew 4:1–10; Luke 19:46) or “As it is written” (Luke 3:4) or “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled” (Luke 4:21).
Jesus often referred to “all of the prophets” (Luke 18:31) or a whole book, such as the “book of Psalms” (Luke 20:42).

It is difficult not to conclude that, for Jesus, what Scripture said, the Creator said (Matthew 19:5). It would therefore be good practice to remind ourselves that God is infinite in knowledge; He cannot be hampered by a lack of understanding in geology or astronomy! If He did not intend for us to accept Genesis as literal history, then God deliberately misled us through Jesus and all of His disciples. It is therefore reasonable to think that once we reject a literal Genesis in favor of evolutionary views, we put ourselves on a slippery slope of unbelief (see Ham and Byers 2000 for a discussion of the sad example of Charles Templeton and the consequences that followed). The least we can say is that to reject the literal truth of the texts in Genesis amounts to a questioning of God’s ability to clearly communicate with His children.

Is the Bible not the work of fallible people?

From what we have seen so far, there is no reason to think that Scripture is the work of fallible men. The question is representative of those who want to throw us into doubt about the truth of Scripture and our understanding of its authority. The argument goes roughly like this: The Bible is fallible because it is the product of people’s afterthought about God’s Word and historical events as they perceived them. This means, if yom in Genesis 1 represents a literal day of 24-hours, but scientific methods and research show that it is impossible for the world to have been created in six literal days, then logically God’s Word is fallible and science and its methods infallible. But the idea that scientists and their methods are infallible is something most, if not all, scientists would deny. It follows, then, that any argument to the effect that it would be unwise to put one’s faith in a fallible human work such as the Bible, but wise to put one’s faith in the fallible methods or interpretations of scientists, must be rejected because it is self-contradictory and incoherent.
What happens when we take into account what Paul wrote, reject a literal Genesis, and accept the voice of the majority of scientists? First, humanity did not descend from a single male—the first Adam and first human being created by God (Acts 17:26; 1 Corinthians 15:45). In other words, we are to consider that Paul reflected a serious lack of knowledge and understanding of the world. It follows we cannot really trust Paul concerning origins. But if this is what we are to accept, then we face a dilemma. Consider Paul’s conversion in Acts 9:1–20.

Paul was “breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord” (v. 1).
Paul “fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” (v. 4).
Paul asked: “‘Who are you Lord?’ And He said, ‘I am Jesus’” (v. 5).
Paul “immediately [began] to proclaim Jesus,” “saying, ‘He is the Son of God’” (v. 20).

We submit that Paul’s change of heart is utterly unintelligible and wholly impossible apart from his understanding of the events of (b) and (c). Above all, Paul’s confident actions in (d) would make no sense apart from his belief in the response in (c). If this is a sensible conclusion, then the dilemma Paul created for us is this: Can we justifiably endorse his message (d) if we reject his beliefs. To put it bluntly, if we do not believe that Paul or any other biblical writer wrote on the basis of what God revealed to them, then we call into question everything they believed and that some even died for. This means that we are not at liberty to pick and choose from Scripture what to believe and what not to believe. However, according to the view of some Christians, instances of conflict between science and Scripture can be decided on a case-by-case basis, which is highly problematic.

Are we to allow scientists to dictate to us our interpretation of Scripture?

Many Christian leaders and scholars today hold the view that we can accommodate the idea of millions of years of evolutionary history in our understanding of Genesis. One such justly respected scholar is J. P. Moreland, a philosophy professor at Biola University. It therefore grieves us deeply to say we disagree with Professor Moreland. There are two reasons. Firstly, because of our own commitment to the truth of Scripture, and secondly, because of our encounter with Christians who have appropriated and disseminated Professor Moreland’s view of Scripture in ways that could only harm the faith of many a Christian.
Our aim is accordingly to add to some of the points raised in a paper published by Ken Ham and Terry Mortenson (2009) in response to an article by Moreland (2002) which appears (with his approval) on the Reasons to Believe website. The issue takes on added significance in light of a paper by Moreland in 2007 under the title of “How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What can be Done about It.” Moreland’s thesis is this: “To be more specific, in the actual practices of the evangelical community in North America, there is an over-commitment to Scripture in a way that is false, irrational, and harmful to the cause of Christ” (p. 1). After having clarified what he meant by “over-commitment,”⁵ he followed with two suggestions to correct the problem: (1) “. . . teach people how to avail themselves appropriately of the extra-biblical knowledge available,” and (2) “. . . develop biblical, theological and philosophical justifications for such knowledge along with guidance for its use” (p. 8). He concluded with the following words: “In sum, we Evangelicals rightly confess the ultimate authority of God’s inerrant Word. But we can no longer afford the luxury of Evangelical over-commitment to the Bible” (ibid). What seems clear is that Moreland has not changed his view of Scripture and science since he presented it in 2002. In different words, he developed an argument against “over-commitment to the Bible” and for “extra-biblical knowledge” in order to continue to interpret “day” in Genesis as intrinsically consistent with a long age. The place to begin to make sense of this state of affairs is Moreland’s commitments.
The first thing we note is that Professor Moreland (2002),⁶ after having stated that “we are not to allow science to dictate to us our exegesis of the Old Testament,” registers his awareness of a real danger:

The argument is that if you take the days of Genesis as not being six days and take them as maybe longer periods of time, then where do you draw the line . . . why wouldn’t the same reasoning imply that we’ll eventually have to reinterpret the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ?

What is the danger? Once Christians think it is acceptable to reinterpret the days in Genesis in a non-literal manner, then they have an open a door to do similar things with the rest of Scripture. In different words, if a Christian starts to inductively uphold a preconceived notion (in this instance, about millions of years) and make one Scripture portion to fit that notion, what would prevent him from doing the same with another Scripture portion? Or what consistent control is there in a Christian’s method of interpretation that would prevent him from deconstructing the whole of the Bible in order to hold on to an evolutionary worldview? Moreland has noted the danger; whether he can solve it is questionable, because

most Christian scholars do not accept six literal days . . . they start from outside of Scripture by accepting what the scientific establishment say about millions of years and then proceed to use that ‘fact’ to interpret the Hebrew word yom (translated ‘day’ in Genesis 1) in a way that cannot be justified from the context of Scripture. This is not sound exegesis. Rather, it is using man’s fallible ideas (the supported millions of years) to impose a meaning upon the text. Applying the same principles, one should also reinterpret the Resurrection and Virgin Birth as myths and allegories, since the same scientific establishment tells us that people do not rise from the dead, nor do virgins conceive (Ham and Mortenson 2009, p. 2).

We thus have to face the problem of inconsistency. If Christians wish to be consistent, then the majority voice of scientists must be accepted in all instances where they render a negative verdict on matters which the Bible clearly speaks. Here is an example in neuroscience. According to philosopher Patricia Churchland (2005),

Available evidence indicates that the brain is the thing that thinks, feels, chooses, remembers, and plans . . . . [I]t is exceedingly improbable that there exists a non-physical soul or mind that does the thinking, feeling and perceiving, and that in some utterly occult manner connects with the physical brain. Broadly speaking, the evidence from . . . the various neurosciences strongly imply that there is only the physical brain and its body . . . (p. 5).

Now if 98% of all physicalist neuroscientists currently adhere to this view of a human person (see Snead 2007, p. 15), and if the neuroscientific consensual view of a human person is correct and Christians have to accept it, then all biblical references to life after death (e.g. John 3:16; 1 Corinthians 15; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18) have to be reinterpreted. Why would that follow? If human beings are made up of nothing more than a material body and brain, then they will decompose upon death and eventually disintegrate. Moreover, if a naturalistic view of human beings is upheld, the natural next step would be to disregard the spiritual dimension entirely, and eventually deconstruct the existence of God, angels, demons, etc. The list never ends. Now if a Christian decides to object to the scientific consensus, on what basis would he do that? It cannot be Scripture, for “science” has spoken. What he must do then is harmonizing Scripture with science.
But Moreland reasoned differently: “The fact of the matter is, when you interpret biblical texts, you’ve got to take each one at its own merits and you’ve got to do the very best you can to handle that text by itself.” This is not consistent and is at best arbitrary, because once a certain way of interpretation is accepted there is no reason not to apply it to other texts of the Bible. For example, it is a short step from understanding “day” in Genesis 1 in a non-literal sense to understanding “day” in Exodus 20:9 in the same sense. Not to do so would be inconsistent. So we have a legitimate concern here. In the words of Ham and Mortenson (2009):

[H]istorically speaking, in the church the rejection of the literal truth of Genesis preceded (and hermeneutically laid the groundwork for) the rejection of the literal truth of the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ. By and large, people have abandoned belief in Genesis 1–11, before they abandoned belief in the Gospels. Young-earth creationists do not take, and never have taken, every word or verse in the Bible literally, contrary to what our critics charge. We have always recognized that there are idioms, parables and other figurative, symbolic phrases or sections of Scripture. What we have contended is that Genesis 1–11 is not one of those sections. It is sober, true and inerrant history (p. 5).

Moreland said that an old-earth interpretation “is a permissible option if it harmonizes the text with science, because that option can be justified exegetically, independent of science.” This idea is not an idea from nowhere; it flows from an erroneous assumption, which he stated elsewhere this way: “Moreover, Christians have a special intellectual and moral obligation to follow Augustine’s advice: we have a duty, he said, to show that our Scriptures do not contradict what we have reason to believe from reliable sources outside them” (Moreland 1994, p. 11). It is simply false; Christians have no “special intellectual and moral obligation to follow Augustine’s advice,” especially if that means to reinterpreting Scripture in inconsistent ways. The fact of the matter is,

No such [valid] old-earth interpretation exists. They all ignore at least some of the details of Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:8–11 that show overwhelmingly that these were literal days of creation. They all ignore the theological problem of millions of years of death before the Fall and (knowingly or unconsciously) reduce the Curse in Genesis 3 to nothing more than a spiritual consequence affecting man alone. These old-earth views all ignore the testimony of Jesus and the apostles they were young-earth creationists . . . None of these old-earth reinterpretations are ‘justified exegetically independent of science’ but rather are classic examples of eisegesis (reading into the text what we want it to say), whereby evolutionary theory, millions of years hypotheses and assumptions (not ‘science’) are used to make the text say what it simply does not say (Ham and Mortenson 2009, p. 7).

The sad effect of Moreland’s views, as noted by Ham, Mortenson, and ourselves at the beginning of this discussion, is that many Christians will and have accepted uncritically what respected leaders are saying in public, and therefore accepted uncritically an unbiblical idea. And that idea derives ultimately from the advice of Augustine, namely, that science justify the “rejection of six ordinary days of creation for one simple reason; because the majority of the scientists of this age, along with the majority of Bible scholars (who uncritically follow the scientific majority) believe the earth is billions of years old” (Ham and Mortenson 2009, p. 12).
Not too long ago, molecular biologist and medical doctor Michael Denton (1986)—who is not a Christian—observed that “the crowning achievement, of the naturalistic view of the world, [is] the final triumph of the secular . . . (p. 353).” This observation raises the question of whether the anti-God and “naturalistic view of the world” is an accident or not rather symptomatic of something deeper.

Section III: Two kinds of wisdom

In his book The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris (1989) wrote:

Evolutionism is basic in ancient and modern ethnic religions and in all forms of pantheism. Naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace admitted that he received the basic tenets of the Darwinian form of this heresy while in an occult trance in a Malaysian jungle. It does not take a theologian to figure out the identity of the revealer. Satan and his evolutionary gospel hate God as the Creator, Christ as the Savior, and the Bible as the Word of God. Modern evolutionism is simply the continuation of Satan’s long war against God (p. 10).

Christians who think the creation-evolution conflict is a mere conflict over biblical interpretation and the “voice” of science need to think again. Dr Morris’ words reveal the character of this world and its ruler as the very antithesis (opposite) of God (cf. John 12:31, 14:30; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 1 John 5:19). So when Christians find themselves on crossroads in regard to the ideas of this world, the first question is not whether they will make Christianity relevant to the world, but whether they are consistent with the revealed truth of God found in the Bible.
This also seems to be the message of James 3:15–17. In this part of Scripture, the apostle identified two kinds of wisdom that are diametrically opposed to each other: the wisdom from “above” and the wisdom from “below.” Characteristic of the wisdom “from above” is that it is “reasonable” (v. 17). Whereas the New American Standard Bible indicates that the word “reasonable” can also mean “willing to yield,” the King James Bible reads “easy to be intreated.” The idea seems to be that Christians are characterized by an attitude to yield to the knowledge and truth that come from God (v. 13–14), as opposed to a this-worldly and unyielding attitude characteristic of the wisdom from “below.” We could therefore wonder whether this is a mere coincidence that scientists today wish for us to accept naturalistic evolutionary theory as an explanatory “theory of everything.” In Section I, we have noted the convictions of some of the most eminent scientists on this planet today, and we have also seen that both Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins said that they will believe in evolutionary theory even if it is false.
So what follows when a Christian accepts evolutionary theory and its implications? There will be efforts to make Scripture relevant to worldly standards and schemes, and a discrediting of the authority of the Word of God. Let us consider what a leading evolutionist and atheist had to say about Christians who interact with the Bible in that way.

Thomas Huxley as a reminder

In his day, Huxley (1825–1895) was known as “Darwin’s bulldog,” as he did more to propagate Darwin’s ideas than anyone else, including Darwin himself. It is sad to say, but Huxley knew the Bible and understood Christianity better than many a theologian today. What Huxley clearly saw was that reading millions of years into the Days of Creation as recorded in Genesis amounts to nothing less than a compromise of Scripture. And he used that very compromise against Christians to help him in his task of undermining the Christian faith. In his essay, “Lights of the Church and Science,” he made the following statements:

I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how anyone, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures [Old Testament]. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricable interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with the Messiah rests upon the interpretation of the passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the ‘ten words’ [i.e., 10 Commandments] were not written by God's hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the Story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the Creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome--what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated. And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands? (Huxley 1893, pp. 207–208).

What was Huxley’s point? If Christians believe the New Testament, then they must believe the Creation account of Genesis as historical truth. He quoted Matthew 19:4–5 where Jesus referred to the literal creation “at the beginning” and “male and female,” and then asked:

If divine authority is not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis, what is the value of language? And again, I ask, if one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as a ‘type’ or ‘allegory,’ what becomes of the foundation of Pauline theology?” . . . . If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive ‘type,’ comparable to the profound Prometheus mythos, what value has Paul’s dialectic (Huxley 1893, pp. 235–236)?

Huxley was adamant that science (by which he understood evolutionary, long-age ideas about the past) had proven that one cannot intelligibly accept the Genesis record of Creation as historical truth. He thus mocked those who tried to harmonize millions of years of evolutionary history with Scripture, because it would require of them to give up a historical Genesis while still trying to hold on to the teachings of the New Testament. In short, Huxley serves as a reminder that Christians who insist on accepting evolution and/or millions of years can only do so consistently, if they give up the Bible totally. Compromise is therefore not an option for a biblical Christian.

Summary and conclusion

Many Christians today accept evolution and/or millions of years in order to show that the Bible does not conflict with science. The evidence suggests that those who make that claim are misguided and inconsistent in their handling of Scripture. The bottom line is that just as it is impossible to believe a statement of fact can be both true and false at the same time, so it is logically impossible to believe that two contradictory explanations of Creation can both be true at the same time. Section II focused more on questions/issues that are featured or are neglected when Christians attempt to reconcile scientific theories with biblical data on the origins of life or the kinds of things that exist in the world. When Christians begin to accuse or imply that their fellow Christians are “over-committed” to the Bible, they sow seeds of doubt in the authority of Scripture, even if they do it unconsciously and unintentionally, or as a result of pressure to be “fully relevant” to the world. In different words, it is a short step before someone thinks that biblical Christians are “fighting science” when they actually oppose attempts to reinterpret Scripture in order to reconcile it with anti-biblical human inventions. Nothing could be further from the truth. If “It is written” was good enough for Jesus then it ought to be good enough for us. Section III suggested that Christians would do well to reconsider their views about the source and nature of the naturalism that currently controls interpretations of biblical and scientific data. In other words, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8).

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the reviewers of this paper for their very helpful and appreciated suggestions and corrections.

References

Aveling, E. B. 1883. The religious views of Charles Darwin. London: Free Thought Publishing Company.
Ayala, F. J. 2007. Darwin’s greatest discovery: design without designer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:8567–8573.
Baird, R. B., and Rosenbaum S. E. 2007. Intelligent design. Science or religion? Critical perspectives New York: Prometheus Books.
Batten, D. (ed), K. Ham, J. Sarfati, and C. Wieland. 2003. The Updated & Expanded Answers Book. The 20 most-asked questions about creation, evolution, & the book of Genesis answered! Hebron, Kentucky: Answers in Genesis.
Bergman, J. 2010. Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism. Answers Research Journal 3:147–152.
Brown, W. S., and Jeeves M.A. 1999. Portraits of human nature: Reconciling neuroscience and Christian anthropology. Science and Christian Belief 11, no. 2:139–150.
Churchland, P. S. 2005. Neuroscience, ethics, agency, and the self. Retrieved on November 30, 2010 from www.naturalism.org/01-chap01.pdf.
Cohen, I. B. 1985. Revolusion in science. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Coyne, J. A. 2009. Creationism for liberals. The New Republic, August 12, pp. 34–43.
Darwin, C. 1859. The origin of species. London: John Murray.
Darwin, C. Selections from The Descent of Man. In R.M. Baird and S.E. Rosenbaum 2007, pp. 69–78. Intelligent design. science or religion? Critical perspectives. New York: Prometheus Books.
Dawkins, R. 2006/1986. The blind watchmaker. London: Penguin Books.
Delfino, R. A. 2005. Christian physicalism and personal identity. Retrieved February 2, 2011, from www.metanexus.net.
Denton, M. 1986. Evolution: A theory in crisis. New developments in science are challenging orthodox Darwinism. Chevy Chase, Maryland: Adler & Adler Publishers, Inc.
Freeman, T. R. 1998. The chronologival value of Genesis 5 and 11 in light of recent biblical investigation. Ph.D. thesis, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Freeman, T. R. 2008. Do the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies contain gaps? In Coming to grips with Genesis, ed. T. Mortenson and T. H. Ury, pp. 283–314. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books.
Garcia, R. K. 2000. Minds sans miracles: Colin McGinn’s naturalized mysticism. Philosophia Christi 2:239.
Gould, S. J. 1991. Bully for brontosaurus. New York: W.W. Norton.
Gould, S. J. 2001. Introduction. Evolution: The triumph of an idea. C. Zimmer, 2001, pp. ix–xiv. New York: Harper Collins.
Graffin, G. W. 2004. Evolution, monism, atheism, and the naturalist world-view. Ithaca, New York: Polypterus Press.
Ham, K. 2001. The Big Picture Retrieved on February 9, 2011, from www.answersingenesis.org.
Ham, K., and S. Byers. 2000. 6382. Retrieved on February 3, 2011, from www.answersingenesis.org.
Ham, K., and T. Mortenson. 2009. Are (Biblical) Creationists “Cornered?”. Retrieved on September 9, 2011. from www.answersingenesis.org.
Hodge, C. 1997. Systematic theology. Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Huxley, T. H. 1893. Science and Hebrew tradition. New York: D. Appleton.
Jarvis, M. 2007. God by Evolution. Wellington, RSA: Fact and Faith Publications. Retrieved on February 22, 2011, from www.godbyevolution.com.
Jones, F. N. 2005. The chronology of the Old Testament. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books.
Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District et al. Case No. 04cv2688, December 20, 2005. In the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Larmer, R. A. 2000. Christian anthropology: Saving the soul.” Philosophia Christi 2:211–226.
Laughlin, R. B. 2005. A different universe. New York: Basic Books.
Moreland, J. P. (ed.) 1994. The creation hypothesis. Scientific evidence for an intelligent Designer. Downers Grove: IVP Academic.
Moreland, J. P. 2002. The age of the earth. Retrieved on March 14, 2010, from www.reasons.org/age-earth/biblical-evidence-old-earth/age-earth-0.
Moreland, J. P. 2007. How evangelicals became over-committed to the Bible and what can be done about it. Retrieved on January 14, 2009, from www.kingdomtriangle.com.
Morris, H. M. 1989. The long war against God. The history and impact of the creation/evolution conflict. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

Mortenson, T. 2007. Jesus, evangelical scholars, and the age of the earth. TMSJ 18. no. 2: 69–98.

Mortenson, T. 2009. Systematic Theology Texts and the Age of the Earth. Answers Research Journal 2 (2009):175–200.
Murphy, N. (undated). Scientific perspectives on Christian anthropology. CTI Reflections. Retrieved on June 20, 2010, from www.astseminary.com/nonreductivephysi-calism/MurphyNanceyNRP1.pdf.
Murphy, N. 2005. Nonreductive physicalism. In Search of the soul: four views of the mind-body problem. J.B. Green, and S.L. Palmer (eds.). Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.
Murphy, N. 2006. Bodies and souls, or spirited bodies? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Preston, J., and N. Epley. 2009. Science and God: an automatic opposition between ultimate explanations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45:238–241.
Pierce, L. 2006. The World: Born in 4004 BC? Answers 1, no. 1:25–26, 72. Retrieved on February 14, 2011, from www.answersingenesis.org.
Provine, W. B. 1988. Scientists, face it! Science and religion are incompatible. The Scientist 2, no. 16:10.
Provine, W. B. 1994. Dare a scientist believe in design. In Evidence of purpose: scientists discover creativity. J.M. Templeton (ed.), pp. 21–32. New York: Continuum.
Sarfati, J. 2004. Refuting compromise. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books.
Searle, J. 1992. The rediscovery of the mind. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Siemans, D. F. 2005. Neuroscience, theology, and unintended consequences. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 57 no. 3:187–190.

Snead, O. C. 2007. Neuroimaging and the ‘complexity’ of capital punishment. Retrieved on November 9, 2010, from www.works.bepress.com/orlando_snead/3/.

Stambaugh, J. 1996. The days of creation: A semantic approach. Proc. Evangelical Society’s Far West Region Meeting, The Master’s Seminary, Sun Valley, California, April 26.
Stewart-Williams, S. 2004. Can an evolutionist believe in God? Philosophy Now 47:19–21.
Todd, S. C. 1999. A view from Kansas on that evolution debate. Nature 401:423.
Watson, D. M. S. 1929. Adaptation. Nature 124:231–234.
Weinberg, S. 2008. Without God. The New York Review of Books 55, no. 14.
Whitcomb, J. C., and H. M. Morris. 1961. The Genesis Flood. The biblical record and its scientific implications. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.
Wiker, B. 2002. Moral Darwinism. How we became hedonists. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic.
Williams, N. 2008. Darwin celebrations begin. Current Biology 18, no. 14:R579–R580.

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.

Footnotes

This is also the conclusion of zoologist Dr Michael Jarvis (2007). In the download version of his book God by Evolution, Dr Jarvis said, “If Christianity is to be fully relevant in our day, I believe it must embrace the overwhelming [scientific] evidence for the great age of our Universe and Earth, the existence of death right from the first life and the existence of anatomically modern people before biblical Adam. For many people, to deny these realities would be to commit intellectual suicide” (p. 5). There appears to be only one way Christianity could be “fully relevant in our day,” and that is to interpret Scripture in such a way as to make it harmonize with evolutionary interpretations of scientific discoveries. In the words of Jarvis (2007), “[S]ome historical interpretations of Christianity [i.e., a literal understanding of the Genesis record of Creation] need to be re-interpreted, if they are to be reconcilable with the whole truth” (p. 5). We shall see in this paper that Dr Jarvis’ call to make Christianity relevant to the world amounts to nothing less than a compromise of Scripture and the undermining of the Christian gospel. Back
We are not saying that “there is no conflict between faith and science” (or “religion and science”) or “there is no conflict between faith in God and evolution.” It is this language that deceives Christians by directing their attention away from biblical revelation and onto a vaguely defined “faith.” This deceptive language needs to be exposed and the real battle of the clear teaching of Genesis versus the theory of evolution. Back
Most of the quotations in this section appears in Bergman (2010, pp. 147–152). Back
For an indepth discussion of issues relating to items 1–3, see Mortenson (2007, 2009), and John Whitcomb and Henry Morris (1961). Back
By “over-commitment” Moreland refers to Christians who accept Scripture as their ultimate authority and ultimate source of relevant knowledge, but then go on to accept Scripture as the sole authority or source of knowledge relevant to understanding the world (Moreland 2007, p. 2). While that may be true of many Christians, the authors are not aware of a single creationist who considers Scripture as the sole source of knowledge. What they do hold, as Moreland rightly pointed out, is that Scripture is their ultimate authority and source of knowledge in all matters on which it speaks (cf. John 17:17, 5:33; Galatians 5:7; 1 John 2:21). Back

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Evidence against evolution

Fossil data

Fossil Formation

The great majority of fossils are found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is formed from particles which are carried by water and deposited when the water action becomes sufficiently still for the particles to settle out. Once deposited, the action of chemical cementing agents and/or pressure causes the material to become rock. Plants and animals that are swept into this process can thus become fossilized as part of the rock. Sedimentary rock layers vary from a few feet to hundreds of feet thick and somewhat rarely as much as 1000 feet thick.

Fossil Dating

Geologists have observed that in sedimentary rock, that layers are readily identified that most often contain the same type of fossilized animal remains. Observing that this layering has the less complex organisms at the bottom and proceeds to more complex organisms at the top, scientists have theorized that this sedimentary layering provides primary evidence of a time sequence of when these organisms lived. By assuming that rock formation has always occurred at the same rate that it occurs today, scientists have devised a time scale for the various layers. According to this theory, the formation of sedimentary rock that is hundreds of feet thick would take millions of years. Due to this observation coupled with the advent of evolutionary theory that also requires millions of years, the estimated age of the earth by evolutionary geologists has increased greatly in the last 150 years. The application of radiometric dating methods has somewhat standardized the age estimates to about 4.5 billion years.

Geologists believe that certain fossils were formed during restricted time spans and therefore these “index fossils” are used as primary evidence to date rocks based on their position in the layer sequence. This arrangement of the layers into a standardized sequence is known as the “geological column.”

The Sequence in the Column

With fossils formed in sedimentary rock, the expectation of a world-wide deluge would be the formation of sediments across a large portion of the land mass. “About three-fourths, perhaps more, of the land area of the earth, 55 million square miles, has sedimentary rock as the bedrock at the surface or directly under the cover of mantle-rock …The vast bulk of the stratified rocks is composed of shallow-water deposits.”[1]

If the sequence found in the geological column is not produced by evolution, then what caused the sequence? Morris and Whitcomb, in “The Genesis Flood” provide three reasons for the sequence:

(1) Marine Life. The sea bottoms being affected by the “opening of the fountains of the deep” would be first affected, and would likely then be first deposited. “With reference to the Cambrian strata, supposedly the oldest fossiliferous strata: ‘At least 1500 species of invertebrates are known in the Cambrian, all marine, of which 60% are trilobites and 30% brachiopods.’[2] … It is not until the Permo-Carboniferous is reached, well up in the geologic column, that the first land animals are encountered.”[3]

(2) Sorting. They point out that the dynamics of moving water (hydrodynamics) will lead to sorting of material based on particle diameter, sphericity, and density. “Particles which are in motion will tend to settle out in proportion mainly to their specific gravity (density) and sphericity. It is significant that the organisms found in the lowest strata, such as the trilobites, brachiopods, etc., are very ‘streamlined’ and are quite dense. … on the average, the sorting action is quite efficient and would definitely have separated the shells and other fossils in just such fashion as they are found, with certain fossils predominant in certain horizons, the complexity of such ‘index fossils’ increasing with increasing elevation in the column, in at least a general way”[4]

(3) Mobility. Vertebrates would be expected to be higher in the column since they possess higher mobility. In general, the larger the animal, the more likely it would be to escape the flood waters. This is what is found in the column, as is evidenced by the proposed evolution of the horse from a small fox-like animal to the large horse of today. The simplest vertebrates (ostracoderms) are found in the Ordovician strata. “Fishes are found in profusion in the Devonian, often in great sedimentary ‘graveyards,’ indicating violent deposition, and often in fresh-water deposits. It is obvious that fish do not normally die and become fossilized in such conditions as these but usually are either destroyed by scavengers or float on the surface until decomposed. The whole aspect of the fossil fish beds bespeaks violent burial in rapidly moving deltaic sediments.”[5]

Thus, in summary, the expected results of a world-wide deluge should be deposition in order of increasing mobility (ability to escape inundation), of decreasing density and other hydrodynamic factors, and of increasing elevation of habitat. “The order is exactly what is to be expected in light of the Flood account and, therefore, gives further circumstantial evidence of the truthfulness of that account … And the fact that, although this order is generally to be expected, it is found to have many exceptions, both in terms of omissions and inversions, is also certainly to be expected in terms of Deluge events, but is extremely difficult to account for logically in terms of evolution and uniformity.”[6]

Table 1: Geological Column

Era	Period	Epoch	10⁶ years
Cenozoic	Quaternary	Holocene	0-0.1
		Pleistocene	0.1-1.6
	Tertiary	Pliocene	1.6-6.3
		Miocene	6.3-23
		Oligocene	23-36.6
		Eocene	36.6-53
		Paleocene	53-66
Mesozoic	Cretaceous		66-135
	Jurassic		135-205
	Triassic		205-250
Paleozoic	Permian		250-290
	Carboniferous	Pennsylvanian	290-320
		Mississippian	320-355
	Devonian		355-410
	Silurian		410-438
	Ordovician		438-510
	Cambrian		510-570
Precambrian			570-4,600

The Problem With Dating

Gish argues, “It should be realized that there is no direct method for determining the age of any rock. While very accurate methods are available for determining the present ratios of uranium-lead, thorium-lead, potassium-argon, and other isotope ratios in mineral-bearing rocks, there is, of course, no direct method for estimating the initial ratios of these isotopes in the rocks when the rocks were first formed. Radiochronologists must resort to indirect methods which involve certain basic assumptions. Not only is there no way to verify the validity of these assumptions, but inherent in these assumptions are factors that assure that the ages so derived, whether accurate or not, will always range in the millions to billions of years.”[7]

The radiometric methodology seems to lend credence to the evolutionary theory, but even this methodology is based on unverifiable assumptions, and does not really in practice provide a standard.

Gish notes: “It is often suggested, however, that radiometric dating methods are used to date fossils, a method entirely independent of any supposed stratigraphic correlation or evolutionary stories. Derek Ager, Professor of Geology at University College, Swansea, Wales, has reacted angrily to such claims. He says,

‘My frustrations as a geologist were brought to boiling point by David Challinor’s article on natural history museums (New Scientist, 29 September, 1983, p. 959) and in particular by his remark that “Originally, paleontologists dated fossils by identifying the geological strata in which they were found. Today the age of a fossil is determined by measuring the decay of radioactive carbon or by means of the decay of their radioactive potassium in argon” … Ever since William Smith at the beginning of the 19^th century, fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur. … As for having all the credit passed to the physicists and the measurement of isotopic decay, they make my blood boil! Certainly such studies give dates in terms of millions of years, with huge margins of errors. … I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.’[8]

Thus it seems that fossils are used to date rocks, not radiometric dating methods. That seems to bring us back into a circle, for how do we date fossils? In the final analysis, all appears to rest on an assumed evolutionary sequence.”[9]

Molecular data

“The molecular data, however, muddies the water as badly as do the fossils. For example, Weishampel, Dodson, and Osmolska state:

Molecular data on tetrapod phylogeny are equivocal regarding the relationship of birds and crocodiles. Some analyses pair these two groups … but many tend to link birds and mammals more closely … however, other protein sequence analyses give every other imaginable pairing of tetrapod groups, and their significance is debatable …[10]

It seems obvious that if protein sequence analyses gives every imaginable pairing of tetrapod groups, such data are useless in determining the relationships of these groups.”[11]

Lack of transitional forms:

One of the strongest cases against evolution is the total absence of transitional forms. Darwin himself recognized this:

“The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. 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 most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].” Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 323.[12]

Walt Brown also provides the following quote:

“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.” David M. Raup, ‘Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25.

Case Study: From Microorganisms To Fish

Duane Gish notes this problem as follows: “We will now describe the many recent publications that discuss the pervasive, perplexing, and persistent problem for evolutionary theory due to the explosive appearance of a vast array of complex invertebrates in the fossil record with a total absence of ancestors and no trace of transitional forms between the various kinds of invertebrates. Richard Dawkins, the British biologist and evolutionist, states:”[13]

… the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years [evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years], are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.[14]

And Gish also quotes Douglas Futuyma, in his book on evolutionary biology as follows:

“It is considered likely that all the animal phyla became distinct before or during the Cambrian, for they all appear fully formed, without intermediates connecting one form to another.”[15]

This lack of transitional forms is a major theme of the fossil record as can be seen in case after case.

One of the major tenets of Darwinian gradualism is that evolution is slow and takes a lot of time (due to the extreme rarity of beneficial radiation induced mutations). However, the lack of fossil evidence forces them to “squeeze” major sections of evolution into increasing smaller time periods in order to explain the lack of fossil evidence. This is the case for the evolution from invertebrates to vertebrates. Gish notes: “As more and more discoveries are made, evolutionists are getting squeezed more and more. They used to date the … Cambrian period … duration … [at] about 80 million years. Now they are assigning a … time span which they believe may encompass no more than ten million years and most likely only five million years.”[16]

The “sudden” diversification of life in the Cambrian layer is baffling to evolutionists. Gish quotes a Swedish paleontologist:

“Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us … The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of the modern descendants.”[17]

Gish notes: “Yes, indeed, this sudden appearance of complex invertebrates ‘out of the Precambrian mist’ without a trace of ancestors or transitional forms is still baffling and embarrassing to evolutionists today, just as it was to Darwin, because 135 years after Darwin evolutionists are no nearer to a solution of the ‘mystery’ than was Darwin.”[18]

While evolutionists cling to the concept, some are frank about the lack of evidence. Gish quotes a paleontologist of the University of Cambridge who has studied Cambrian fossils extensively as follows:

“The ‘Cambrian explosion’ is a real evolutionary event, but its origins are obscure. At least 20 hypotheses have been proposed, and although arguments linking diversification to oxygen levels, predation, faunal provinciality, and ocean chemistry all attract support, it is the case that ‘The emergence of Metazoa remains the salient mystery in the history of life.’”[19]

In other words, evolutionists cling to a theory that cannot predict or explain the evidence. Gish notes that one of the most thorough discussions of the “Cambrian explosion” is found in “Origin and Early Radiation of the Metazoa”, by paleontologists Philip Signor and Jere Lipps. They report:

“… there is little evidence that the capacity to form skeletons was acquired gradually or over a prolonged period … A wide variety of skeleton types and most of the major marine invertebrate clades appear suddenly in the fossil record. … The ecological diversification of animals is equally dramatic.”[20]

The admitted mechanism for evolution requires gradualism (a long period of time), and yet the evidence is non-existent, since the invertebrates appear “suddenly” in the record.

Gish notes four major arguments used by evolutionists to explain the fossil record:

Hidden evolution. This argument requires a long period of evolution that is “hidden” (or missing from the fossil record), but must have existed since those creatures that do abruptly appear are very complex and very diverse. “It is pointed out, for example, that fully developed trilobites appear throughout the world, no primitive intermediate forms have ever been discovered …” Therefore, it is assumed that since other cases have the same “problem”, that it is not without precedent. Gish notes “This scenario is based on nothing more, of course, than the assumption of evolution.”[21]

Skeletons. Gish notes that many evolutionists have held that the lack of transitional forms is because these forms were all soft-bodied and that soft-bodied animals generally produce “few fossils.” Gish notes: “The alleged discoveries of fossils of microscopic, single-celled, soft-bodied bacteria and algae have appeared frequently in scientific literature during the past few decades. … Furthermore, large numbers of fossils of soft-bodied creatures, such as jellyfish and worms, have been found, many in a remarkable state of preservation.”[22]

Atmospheric Oxygen. Some have suggested that the Cambrian explosion of complex vertebrates was made possible by the accumulation of free oxygen in the atmosphere. If this were true, then one would expect previous layers (periods) to have demonstrably less oxygen levels. Gish notes: “Most geological research in recent years has established beyond little doubt that the earth has always had an oxygenated atmosphere, certainly since sedimentary rocks first began to form.”[23] He quotes Signor and Lipps: “… there is no evidence that oxygen was limiting in the late Proterozoic.”[24]

Ocean Chemistry. Some have argued that certain aspects of the chemistry of the oceans prior to the origin of complex invertebrates inhibited their formation. Gish notes: “But as Signor and Lipps point out, skeletons of calcium carbonate, calcium phosphate, biogenic silica, and agglutinated skeletons all appeared simultaneously in a great variety of invertebrates.”[25] In other words, if this explanation is true, then the chemistry change was a complex one that allowed all skeletal forms to progress simultaneously – not a likely scenario in Darwinian gradualism.

None of these are generally held, and the lack of any reasonably valid explanation is a deep blow to the case of evolution. However, all of the evidence is just what creation demands – a “sudden” appearance of fully developed forms, just as God created them.

Case study: Origin of Reptiles

Reptiles, birds, and mammals are classified as Amniota and therefore referred to as amniotes. Although evolutionists are hard pressed to “find” real evidence for transitional forms, they do produce arguments for some forms. The evolution argument calls for reptiles to be evolved from amphibians. Some have attempted to find creatures which have common features with both amphibians and reptiles, and use them as transitional forms. One such attempt is the Seymouria. Gish quotes Colbert and Morales as follows:

“The mixture of amphibian and reptilian characters seen in Seymouria is indicative of the gradual transition that took place between the two classes during the evolution of the vertebrates.”[26]

Gish Counters: “Those creatures suggested as the earliest known reptiles, Hylonomus and Paleothyris, are found in Lower Pennsylvanian rocks (about 330-315 million years before present on the evolutionary time scale) and the Middle Pennsylvanian rocks (about 310-315 million years), respectively. Fossils of Seymouria are found in Lower Permian rocks, dated at about 280 million years, or at least 25-35 million years too late to be ancestral to reptiles.”[27]

“Diadectes is often cited as being very close to the dividing line between amphibians and reptiles. It is also a most improbable candidate, however. It is about 30 million years too late on the evolutionary time scale to be ancestral to reptiles …“[28]

Gish quotes from Carroll – “The early amniotes are sufficiently distinct from all Paleozoic amphibians that their specific ancestry has not been established (p. 198).”[29] And Gish adds, “The last statement just quoted establishes beyond doubt that transitional forms between amphibians and reptiles do not exist. If they had been found, there would be no doubt concerning which amphibian gave rise to reptiles.”[30]

Case Study: Archaeopteryx (Birds & Reptiles / Dinosaurs)

Archaeopteryx – from “Archae” (ancient) and “pteryx” (wing).

“It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird. Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to its ancestors, the Maniraptora, than to modern birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups. It is one of the most important fossils ever discovered.”[31]

“In a book entitled "Taking Wing" by the American anthropologist PAT SHIPMAN (4), dealing with current debate on the origin and early evolution of birds, the author writes about the seven Archaeopteryx specimens: “[32]

"They include the most beautiful fossil in the world; the most famous fossil in the world; the jewel in the crown of the most beautiful museum in Europe; the proof of evolutionary theory; the evidence of the origin of birds; the secret of bird flight. How can seven scant specimens be so significant? How can it be otherwise?" (underlining mine, D.A.D.)

Evolutionists have maintained that birds have evolved from reptiles. However, some argue that birds are evolved from dinosaurs, with some saying that they are most closely related to crocodiles. The Archaeopteryx is at the center of the controversy. Gish notes “An International Archaeopteryx Conference was held in Eichstatt, Bavaria, September 11-15, 1984, during which advocates of the above ideas put forth their arguments.[33] Especially interesting was the fact that those attending the conference felt it necessary to adopt a communiqué ‘expressing the unanimous belief of all participants in the evolutionary origin and significance of Archaeopteryx in order to forestall possible misuse by creationists of apparent discord among scientists.’[34] In other words, these evolutionists unanimously agree that evolution is a fact even though they cannot agree on the ancestry of birds, and more particularly on the origin of Archaeopteryx.”[35]

Gish adds, “Ostrom and others have claimed that birds had evolved via feathered ground-dwelling (cursorial) predators that had arisen from coelurosaurian dinosaurs. The claim was made that Archaeopteryx had claws similar to those of ground-dwelling birds rather than similar to those of perching, tree-dwelling birds. D. W. Yalden, however, demonstrated that the claws of the manus (forelimb) of Archaeopteryx were nearly identical to those of tree climbers.[36] … Alan Feduccia … established that the arc of the claws of _Archaeopteryx was comparable to that of tree-dwelling (perching) birds. His analysis established that Archaeopteryx was not a cursorial predator but was a perching bird. Feduccia’s conclusion was that:

‘Archaeopteryx probably cannot tell us much about the early origins of feathers and flight in true protobirds because Archaeopteryx was, in a modern sense, a bird.’[37]”

Gish notes, “Larry D. Martin, an ornithologist and professor of systematics and ecology at the University of Kansa and head of the vertebrate paleontology division in the university’s Museum of Natural History, accepts a modified version of the pseudosuchian ancestry of birds that makes birds a sister group to crocodilians. In a newspaper article originally published in Newsday he states:

‘The theory linking dinosaurs to birds is a pleasant fantasy that some scientists like because it provides a direct entry into a past we otherwise can only guess about. But unless more convincing evidence is uncovered, we must reject it and move on to the next better idea.’[38]

Gish states, “Some evolutionists insist that since Archaeopteryx had characteristics of both reptiles and bird, it does represent an intermediate between reptiles and birds, but whatever features it had were complete, not part-way or transitional.”[39]

Gish states, “It is interesting to note the comment of Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History, both ardent anti-creationists. With reference to Archaeopteryx, they state that:

‘At the higher level of evolutionary transition between morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “offical” position of most western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne [a German word meaning basic morphological designs or basically different types of creatures] are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).’[40]”

Gish quotes Swinton, an evolutionist and an expert on birds:

“The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.”[41]

Gish also quotes Romer:

“This Jurassic bird (Archaeopteryx) stands in splendid isolation; we know no more of its presumed thecodont ancestry nor of its relation to later “proper” birds than before.”[42]

In addition to these difficulties, there is the problem of finding birds that are older than Archaeopteryx. Walt Brown notes: “Significantly, two modern birds have recently been found in rock strata dated by evolutionists as much older than Archaeopteryx.[43] Therefore, Archaeopteryx could not be ancestral to modern birds.”[44]

Case Study: The Horse

Proposed Evolutionary Development of the Horse

“A case in point is the evolution of the modern horse, which is believed to be a descendant of a much smaller ancestor named Hyracotherium, which browsed in the woods of the Eocene epoch about 40 million years ago. In comparison to the ancestor, not only are modern horses (genus Equus) larger, but the number of toes has been reduced from four on each foot to one, and the teeth have become modified for grazing rather than browsing. By selecting certain species from the available fossils, it is possible to arrange a succession of animals intermediate between Hyracotherium and modern horses that shows trends toward increased size, reduced number of toes, and grazing teeth. We might interpret this series of fossils as an unbranched lineage leading directly from Hyracotherium to modern horses through a continuum of intermediate stages. If we include all fossil horses known today, however, the illusion of coherent, progressive evolution leading directly to modern horses vanishes. The transition occurs in steps rather than in a smooth gradation of forms; each species appears and disappears in the fossil record without changing noticeably in the interim.”[45] (underlining mine – D.A.D.) This reference still teaches the evolution of the horse with slight modification from the original, but this admission that an arbitray illusion of evolution can be created by placing animal in sequence from small to large is damaging. A careful observer might well ask the question “How is the new ‘proposed’ sequence any more convincing that the first ‘illusion of evolution’ ”?

The reader may further ask the question, “How is the first proposed ‘illusion’ different from any other proposed evolutionary sequence?” That is a very good question. Gish notes: “In November of 1980, 150 evolutionists met for four days at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago to attack or defend the gradualistic evolutionary theory, or the new-Darwinian theory of evolution. … Those attacking the new-Darwinian mechanism of evolution maintained there is little or no evidence of gradualism in the fossil record. Naturally the story of the alleged evolution of the horse was discussed. Boyce Rensberger, in his report of the meeting, stated that:

‘The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-size creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.[46]’

In other words, the alleged horse story is yet another in a long line of acknowledged inabilities of Darwinian evolution to predict or explain the fossil evidence. The persistent lack of any transitional forms is a clear indictment of evolution.

What About Plants?

Gish records, “The following remarks of E. J. H. Corner of the Cambridge University botany school were refreshingly candid:”[47]

“Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the theory of evolution – from biology, biogeography, and paleontoloty, but I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.”[48]

Punctuated Equilibrium

The profound lack of fossil evidence has prompted many, including Ernst Mayr who is sometimes described as having one of the “greatest influences on evolutionary biology since Darwin”[49], to embrace what is commonly termed “punctuated equilibrium”. Ernst Mayr is quoted as saying “A mistake people make is thinking that if something evolves very rapidly, it is no longer Darwinian gradual evolution. But as long as the evolution occurs at the populational level and not at the level of individuals, then it is gradual evolution, occurring over many generations. Some paleontologists call the origin of a species relatively sudden if it takes place during 1% of the total lifespan of the species. But that 1% is 50,000 years or 100,000 years in a species living 5 or 10 million years. Hardly anyone else would call that sudden”

“In the most common occurrence of speciation, according to punctuated equilibrium, small, isolated populations evolve rapidly, so that speciation takes place over about ten thousand to a million years. This period of time is a geological instant, but it still allows plenty of time for gradual change at a fast rate to produce a new species.

Punctuated equilibrium explains how large, stable populations can produce new species: the large population itself doesn't change, but small isolated "pocket" populations might, resulting in branching rather than linear species histories. It also explains the relative scarcity of transitional forms, particularly between species (rather than between larger groups), in the fossil record. If transitional forms only exist for a few thousand years, often in a small geographical location different from its later range, then the odds are against fossils being formed, found, and described.”[50]

Problems with the geological sequence:

Rapid Burial

Walt Brown notes: “Fossils all over the world show evidences of rapid burial. Many fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish, show by the details of their soft, fleshy portions that they were buried rapidly, before they could decay. Many other animals, buried in mass graves and in twisted and contorted positions, suggest violent and rapid burials over large areas. These observations, together with the occurrence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly—not over hundreds of millions of years. Furthermore, almost all sediments were sorted by water. The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of the rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood. The fossil record is not evidence of slow change.”[51]

Gradualism

The earth’s geological record shows a lot of evidence for a world-wide catastrophe which would lay down tremendous volumes of material very rapidly and vast changes in the environment. The large numbers of Mammoths that have been discovered testify to this. These are largely found inside the Arctic Circle and show evidence of being rapidly buried in ice. The flesh is so well preserved that dogs have been known to eat the flesh of thawing Mammoths. For this situation to occur, the Mammoth must have been buried and frozen at an astonishingly rapid rate to prevent decomposition. The primary cause of death is usually attributed to suffocation.

Walt Brown records the following evidence with regard to Mammoths:[52]

“Sanderson describes another strange aspect of Berezovka.

Much of the head, which was sticking out of the bank, had been eaten down to the bone by local wolves and other animals, but most of the rest was perfect. Most important, however, was that the lips, the lining of the mouth and the tongue were preserved. Upon the last, as well as between the teeth, were portions of the animal’s last meal, which for some almost incomprehensible reason it had not had time to swallow The meal proved to have been composed of delicate sedges and grasses

“Another account states that the mammoth’s ‘mouth was filled with grass, which had been cropped, but not chewed and swallowed.’The grass froze so rapidly that it still had ‘the imprint of the animal’s molars.’Hapgood’s translation of a Russian report mentions eight well-preserved bean pods and five beans found in its mouth.”

“Twenty-four pounds of undigested vegetation were removed from the Berezovka mammoth and analyzed by the Russian scientist, V. N. Sukachev. He identified more than forty different species of plants: herbs, grasses, mosses, shrubs, and tree leaves. Many no longer grow that far north; others grow both in Siberia and Mexico. Dillow draws several conclusions from these remains:

• The presence of so many varieties [of plants] that generally grow much to the south indicates that the climate of the region was milder than that of today

• The discovery of the ripe fruits of sedges, grasses, and other plants suggests that the mammoth died during the second half of July or the beginning of August.

• The mammoth must have been overwhelmed suddenly with a rapid deep freeze and instant death. The sudden death is proved by the unchewed bean pods still containing the beans that were found between its teeth, and the deep freeze is suggested by the well-preserved state of the stomach contents and the presence of edible meat [for wolves and dogs]”[53]

The evidence for catastrophic change denies one of the foundation premises of evolutionary dating mechanisms which “assume” uniformity.

Statistics

The principle mechanism of evolutionary change is that of mutation. Mutations are very rare, statistically speaking, and this is usually acknowledged in the long time spans given for evolution. Many have argued that statistically speaking the “chances” of evolution producing man from molecules is virtually nil. Even evolutionists admit that the likelihood of a “good” mutation is highly unlikely. Neil Campbell in his textbook on Biology says:

“However, mutation by itself does not have much quantitative effect on a large population in a single generation. This is because a mutation at any given gene locus is a very rare event; although mutation rates vary, depending on the species and the gene locus, rates of one mutation per locus per 10⁵ to 10⁶ gametes are typical. If an allele has a frequency of 0.50 in the gene pool and mutates to another allele at a rate of 10^-5 mutations per generation, it would take 2000 generations to reduce the frequency of the original allele from 0.50 to 0.49. The gene pool would be affected even less if the mutation were reversible, as most are.”[54]

In addition, with regard to “good” mutations he says:

“Organisms are the refined products of thousands of generations of past selection, and a random change is not likely to improve the genome any more than firing a gunshot blindly through the hood of a car is likely to improve engine performance.”[55]

Actually, this is a quite fitting analogy, and I don’t know anyone who would logically argue that firing a gunshot blindly through the hood of a car would improve engine performance – no matter how many bullets were used!

The Problem Compounded

The problems of statistics in evolution is compounded when the evidence demands that multiple species all mutate at the same time. Duane Gish quotes Romer concerning archosaur evolution as follows:

“Many similarities in structural features among end forms of different archosaurian lines have not been inherited as such from a common ancestor but have been independently acquired by members of the different groups. This however, does no debar such characters from consideration as indications of relationship. Study of fossil forms increasingly indicates that there has been an enormous amount of parallelism in evolution; but this study also appears to demonstrate that close parallelism occurs only in closely related forms.”[56]

This “parallel evolution”, which seems to be demanded by the evidence (when each of the descendant lines has the same feature which the supposed parent did not) as viewed by evolutionists occurs in “enormous” amounts. Now if “good” mutations are extremely rare, such that large numbers of generations are required to influence the population, and the statistical odds are very, very small, then what are the odds that the “same” “good” mutation occurs during the same time period to “many” species? If it happened just twice, the odds would be very small, but to occur “many” times in parallel, it is unbelievable. An unbelievable chance occurrence happening many time in parallel – blind faith is called for here!

More Parallelism

With regard to the evolution of mammals, Gish quotes Kemp as follows:

“It was noted that the fossil record supports the view that evolution towards mammalian levels of homeostasis involved practically all aspects of the organism simultaneously. No single structure or function could evolve very far without being accompanied by appropriate changes in all the other features.”[57]

In this case extremely rare mutations are required in not one area alone, but in parallel since each of the features being evolved could not continue without the parallel development of others.

Conclusion

The compounded parallelism of evolution requires rare events to happen during the same time interval in multiple species, and during the same time interval within species, and furthermore this whole scenario is compounded by having to occur in increasingly short intervals of time. The time element is shortened of necessity to explain the lack of transitional forms (i.e. “punctuated equilibrium”). Roll it all together, and the end result is that statistically speaking, evolution is impossible.

Total Pageviews