FOREWORD
The creation-evolution controversy has been raging for near¬ly a century. Recently there has been increased interest as a result of legislative proposals in several States concerning the teaching of creation, as well as evolution, in the public school systems. The importance of this subject, however, does not change with time or circumstance. To those who seek intellectual content¬ment the issue is timeless. Likewise, origins—which the evolution creation controversy is all about--has universal appeal. Origins is sexless, not circumscribed by political boundaries, raceless, and of interest to all ages. Even tender young children with practically their first words importune parents with "Where did I come from?"
1) THE CONTROVERSY’S IMPORTANCE
Who among thinking people has not asked: "From where did man come?" "From where did the plants and animals come?" "What is the source of the stars, the earth and the universe?"
To some, the answer to these questions is that they are un¬answerable. Perhaps their own reasoning or that of another con¬vinced them that questions about origins can't be resolved and, furthermore, that such questions are only academic and unimpor¬tant. It may be that they have convinced themselves such issues belong to the scientist, philosopher and theologian--not the lay-man.
Many who have dismissed these questions feel they can go on living their lives with no resultant discomfort. "Why expend ener¬gy on meaningless questions when man is faced with so many more profound questions that need resolution?" they ask.
2) CAN LAYMEN QUESTION?
Dogmatic and authoritative pronouncements fulminate from both religious and evolutionary camps. The layman is intimidated. He asks, "Who am I to question recognized authority?" The man on the street, fearing some sort of ostracism or humiliation if he would dare raise his voice as a skeptic, simply allows himself to be swept along by the edicts--the course of least resistance.
In this chapter we will consider the propriety of laymen en¬tering the controversy and deciding for themselves in a reason¬able way the truth on origins. This will require sifting through some of the more popular argumentation foisted on the public and encouragement individually to dissect and openly challenge dogma. Nothing said here is intended to point at specific individuals, organizations, or groups. We will necessarily generalize and speak of two categories, religion and evolution, but not all that we say will apply to all evolutionists or all religionists. And, since there are many in religion who accept evolution and many evolutionists who accept religion, this categorization is arti¬ficial and is not meant to set up a rigid dichotomy. The in¬tent of this expose is simply to reveal attitudes we must watch out for in our pursuit of truth on origins.
3) METHODOLOGY
If any aspect of the subject of origins could be singled out for its importance, it would be methodology. Just as one is de¬pendent upon a map to reach a desired destination, so must one follow the guidelines of proper methodology to find truth.
It is by giving only superficial attention to this facet of our subject that so many have become frustrated in their search for answers. The method by which we can rationally resolve the question of origins will provide the funnel through which we can channel our thoughts and research. It will tell us when our thinking is wrong, when our thinking is right, and how to make corrections, adjustments, modifications and progress. Individuals with various backgrounds, skills, biases, motives and desires will find common footing in a logical, well defined methodology. If our goal is to achieve real, truthful answers, it is preeminently important that we carefully construct the methodological frame¬work for achieving that end, agree to it, use it and stick to it.
4) DEFINITIONS
If we were to ask the average man on the street what evolu¬tion was, he would probably say: "Evolution means man came from an ape." If we asked him what is meant by creation, he would probably say: "Well, creation means everything was created in six days." Even highly educated teachers, and often origin of life researchers, can be heard parroting similar statements. Both of these responses have inklings of accuracy. But any misunderstanding of definitions can efficiently serve to confuse, muddle and cloud one's view of the controversy. Misunderstandings have resulted in misrepresentations. Misrepresentations, in turn, produce bitter and heated exchanges.
Many have made up their minds on the controversy without having ever really understood what either model says. Thus, bias¬es are established and become deep-seated. Minds close without there ever being an understanding of the most essential and ele¬mentary prerequisite to resolving any issue—definitions. How could justice be done to either side if definitions were inaccurate?
5) ORIGIN OF PROTEINS
A fundamental component of living tissue is protein. About 15% of living tissue and approximately ½ of the dry matter of the body are composed of it. Proteins are long chains of smal¬ler molecules called amino acids. There are about twenty dif¬ferent common amino acids, and the specific arrangement of these in sequences dictates the function of the respective proteins.
Proteins are very diversified. Some of the body's proteins are: the collagen of bone, cartilage and other connective tis¬sues, which provide strength and support; the keratin in the skin which has a protective function; the actin and myosin of muscle which provide contractile ability and movement; the var¬ious hormones such as insulin and adrenalin which serve to con¬trol metabolism and various other vital functions; and the anti¬bodies which protect against infection. The importance of tis¬sue and cellular proteins is such that life in the absence of protein is impossible.
What is the origin of proteins? What is the origin of their building blocks (biomonomers), the amino acids? Could the amino acids and proteins characteristic of life arise through natural mechanisms, or would their formation depend upon super¬natural synthesis? Let's answer this by first looking at the amino acids.
6) ORIGIN AND MODIFICATION OF DNA
The ability to reproduce is a unique, outstanding and essen¬tial characteristic of life. If the evolutionist is to describe life's spontaneous formation, he must include a naturalistic ex¬planation of the origin of the reproductive capacity. On the other hand, the creationist must show the insufficiency of natural¬ism and the need to invoke supernatural intelligence.
Recent studies by scientists have revealed a catalog of data on the chemical mechanisms of reproduction. Included in their dis¬coveries were the isolation of the chemical DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and the mechanism by which it functions in reproduction.
DNA is a chemical found in the nuclei of cells which carries the information of heredity. It is the substance of primary im¬portance in the chromosomes and genes.
The DNA molecule is composed of many smaller molecules. There are phosphates, sugars (deoxyribose) and heterocyclic bases (aden¬ine, guanine, cytosine, thymine). The structure of the molecule is described as a double stranded helix, or spiraled ladder, with sugars and phosphates alternating up and down each side of the ladder and bases hydrogen bonding to one another to form the rungs.
The nucleotide is the structural unit of DNA. Each nucleo¬tide consists of a triplet of molecules: sugar, phosphate and base.
7) BIOCHEMICAL BIAS & CHEMICAL NEO-DARMINISM
Probabilities speak decisively against the chance formation of life. Mora has stated:
"…the presence of a living unit is exactly opposite to what we would expect on the basis of pure statistical and probability considerations."
The evolutionist sees this problem and, if he excludes the creation alternative, reasons, "Since I know that life is here, the 'die' used for the naturalistic formation of life must have been weighted, lopsided. Ah, Yes, the chemicals that formed life must have had a natural attraction for one another just as magnets attract north to south and electricity attracts positive to nega¬tive. If magnets were randomly mixed they would not assort ran¬domly like marbles, but would be influenced by natural magnetic forces and aggregate in a predictable orderly fashion. Probabili-ties are only valid if all possible outcomes are equally probable. The whole of biochemistry and thermodynamics points to the fact that not all reactions are equally possible. It is likely that chemicals were selected by one another and by the environment—a natural selection mechanism, Darwin's posit. Chemicals have pref¬erences just as people do. Are people's actions random?".
8) REDUCTIONISM
The purpose of science is to gain and apply knowledge. Usu¬ally, enlightment as to how this or that works is dependent upon a study of component parts. Thus we find knowledge and understand¬ing increasing with the degree to which the scientist is able, ei¬ther directly or indirectly, to observe the tiny, the miniscule, the itsy bitsy. Cadavers are dissected, tissues are sectioned for microscopic examination, individual cells are teased apart, inner microstructure is observed by electron microscopy, and laboratory analyses are performed on component chemicals.
We term the process by which science attempts, to understand structure and how and why things work, through disassembling and examining the small, reductionist". Reductionism is largely re¬sponsible for the colossal amount of knowledge that has been stock¬piled in the last century. As the technological means for explor¬ing the diminutive increased, man's knowledge, understanding and command of the physical and biological worlds likewise grew.
For example, a real understanding of heredity was not attain¬able until scientists could fully apply reductionism: (1) The light microscope revealed the relationship of the chromosomes, to cellular division; (2) Electron microscopy allowed visualization of genes and even DilA molecules within the chromosomes; (3) Chem¬ical analyses. X-ray diffraction studies and various electronic analytical machines have revealed the specific structure of DNA, obligatory base pairing, and the roles of DNA, R-RNA, M-RNA, T-RNA, and various enzymes in genetics and heredity. Vague heredity terms like "unit" and "factor were replaced with chemical jargon.
9) TIME
Evolutionists agree that the spontaneous origin of life is highly improbable from a pure statistical standpoint. But, say some, given sufficient time (an estimate of 50,000 years is need¬ed for the rise of a single new species) and repeated trials the evolution of life becomes inevitable. The evolutionist, Wald, dismisses the objection that life could not evolve spontaneously, by asserting that this judgment is based upon the human scale of experience and does not take into consideration the vast geologi¬cal time available for the process. He states:
"Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of hu-man experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible prob¬able, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles."
The biologist, Leo Koch, agrees that given sufficient time,
". . . the highly improbable occurs regularly and indeed is inevitable."2
Urey argues:
"However, the evolution from inanimate systems of bio¬chemical compounds, e.g., the proteins, carbohydrates, enzymes and many others, of the intricate systems of re¬actions characteristic of living organisms, and the truly remarkable ability of molecules to reproduce themselves seems to those most expert in the field to be almost impossible. Thus a time from the beginning of photosynthesis of two billion years may help many to accept the hypothesis of the spontaneous generation of life.” 3
10) YOUTH OR ANTIQUITY
In the previous chapter the assumption was made that the evolutionist would have all the time to work with he wished. How¬ever, the amount of time available is a subject open to debate. The creationist, aside from arguing that time Is not creative, would hold that the universe is not infinitely old.
Creation and evolution are at poles in their interpretations of time:
1. Evolutionism--the universe is infinitely old and life dates in¬to the billions of years.
2. Creationism—the universe is youthful and life dates back only a few thousand years.
There are variances from these positions. I have chosen the traditional extremes. Most evolutionists hold quite closely to the notion of an infinite, or at least a vastly old universe. To most evolutionists, huge time and evolution are inseparable. Ev¬olution is dependent upon time. On the other hand, creation, a miracle, is not at all dependent upon time. However, many crea-tionists have veered considerably from the traditional creation-istic view of time noted above. They have changed their position because of intense pressure from evolutionary scientific arguments for vast age. Some creationists now believe in the exact time scale advocated by the evolutionary proposition. Some think in terms of hundreds of thousands, or millions, but not billions. Others suggest that the universe is almost infinitely old but that life is relatively recent.
11) BIOGENESIS
Prior to the time of the Italian physician Redi (1688), life was popularly believed to emerge spontaneously from lifeless de¬caying matter. The idea was held by such notable figures as Newton, Aristotle, Harvey, Thales, Plato, Epicurus, Oemocritus, Goethe, Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, Hegel and Schelling. 1 This belief, known as spontaneous generation, gave rise to such novel notions as the origin of geese from barnacles, mice from dirty undergarments and bees from dead calves, and drew its credibility from observa¬tions. Banana peels do appear to yield fruit flies and manure does appear to yield maggots. It was a scientific hypothesis.
Spontaneous Generation Disproved
Spontaneous generation was discredited because seekers of truth bothered to look beyond the surface. Redi, Spallanzani (1780) and Pasteur (1860) devised various experiments to check the valid¬ity of the hypothesis. In essence, their experiments were designed to see if life truly came from matter itself, or whether it re¬sulted from biological contamination.
These experimenters found that when matter was presterilized and sealed off from the environment, no life arose. (Fig. 52) The work of these three men plus that of the pathologist Rudolf Virchow (1858), who showed that cells do not arise from amorphous exudate, but rather from preexisting cells, and the labors of countless scientists in all of the various disciplines of biology since, have established the law of biogenesis—life springs from preexisting life.
12) IS LIFE DEFINABLE?
The subject we have been pursuing concerns the origin of "life." We speak of life as if it were something apart from the material. Is life unique, or is it merely another form of mat¬ter itself?
Evolutionists argue that it is very difficult to define life. They then insist that the confusion in defining life, in clearly setting it apart from the physical world, actually shows its continuous nature with the inorganic lifeless world. Life is understood to be simply a degree of complexification of mat¬ter. Life is not thought of as "originating." Defining life is thought of as putting artificial constraints upon something that is a part of a material continuum.
Bernal, of McGill University puts it:
"Life can be thought of as water kept at the right temperature in the right atmosphere in the right light for a long enough period of time."
Keosian takes this position:
"Where does life fit into this progression? Nowhere. It makes little sense to attempt to squeeze anywhere into this gradual scheme sequence of stages to matter a nebulous indefinable something called 'life', which presumably breaks this gradual sequence abruptly into two groups—inanimate and living.
Elsewhere he remarks regarding the difficulty in defining life:
"This marked lack of success is a measure of proof that matter goes through a continuous hierarchy of increasingly complex stages, and that there is indeed one evolution, the evolution of matter, even to the level of reasoning power.” 3
13) LAW OF MASS ACTION
The chapters on the origin of DNA and protein assumed no dif¬ficulties would be encountered in spontaneously forming the re¬spective biomonomers (building blocks). The assumption was also made that the biomonomers would link (polymerize) into giant pro¬tein and DNA polymers with ease. To this point we have primarily concerned ourselves with the sequences in protein and DNA, i.e., what could account for all L-proteins? What could account for the information riding on the sequences in DNA and protein? Can ex¬isting DNA within organisms be modified and complexify? etc.
In this chapter and the next, we will consider questions re¬garding the mechanics of the formation of biomonomers and poly¬mers. The evolutionary model must demonstrate that natural proc¬esses can account for biomonomers and subsequent polymerization of these into chains. The evolutionist must advance natural mech¬anisms and a natural environmental setting for their spontaneous formation. The creationist must sit back and watch, challenging the evolutionary proofs that are pleaded. If the mechanism and evidence used to demonstrate naturalistic origins are credible, then the evolutionist has a feather in his cap. If the creation¬ist can show that naturalism is inadequate, then, since life with all of its complex biochemicals is here, he could argue the need for a supernatural agent to account for it. If his case is un¬satisfactory, the evolutionist could counter by expressing trust that future discovery and thought will vindicate his position. The creationist would, in turn, object to the evolutionist express¬ing faith in future discovery to justify belief in evolution, and contend that even if biomonomers could form, they could not link into information carrying sequences. And on and on the controver¬sy would go.
We must listen intently and critically as we continue to ask ourselves: Where does the evidence fit best, under creation, or under evolution?
14) PRIMATIVE ENVIRONMENT
The primordial earth is viewed by evolutionists as a hot ball that gradually cooled over eons of time. With the formation of the crust and the oceans, the earth's forte was then the spontan¬eous generation of life. An atmosphere was formed, lightning bolts struck, and to these amenities it is suggested we owe homage for our existence.
There have been many experiments that attempt duplication of the speculated primordial conditions. The results have been, to say the least, most exciting to evolutionists. The products ob¬tained in these experiments have included the organic building blocks of life! Have creationists been given the coup de grace? Do these results constitute proof that life could or did arise spontaneously?
In this chapter we will closely examine the speculated early earth conditions. In the next we will scrutinize biopoiesis (spontaneous generation) experiments.
15) BIOPOIESIS EXPERIMENTS
The origin of life is a subject of intense research. In the early 1900's, Oparin and Haldane pioneered research in biopoiesis. Today there are several laboratories around the globe set aside for the express purpose of investigating the origin of life. It is not uncommon to read of the accomplish¬ments of these "origin-of-lifers" in the local newspaper. Often they are credited with discoveries that imply to the reader that man is able to synthesize life in the laboratory. It is commonly held that the accomplishments of researchers have discredited the notion of creation.
Laboratory experimentation allows men to come the closest to direct visual, repeatable proof of spontaneous origins, and disproof of creation. Since chemical evolution depends upon entirely natural forces, an examination of these forces in the laboratory could make or break abiogenesis (biopoiesis, spontaneous generation, chemical evolution). On the other hand, the laboratory proof of creation is impossible because creation, of course, depends upon a supernatural agent, and laboratory procedures are performed by natural human agents. But creation can be disproved in the laboratory by the proof of the alterna¬tive.
However, laboratory "proofs" or "disproofs" must be qualified. Any "proof" or "disproof" would be circumstantial in that conditions used in any experiment could not be proven to be the exact conditions extant at the time of the origin of life. Nevertheless, if scientists were able to create life, the argument that a supernatural agent is an absolute necessity, could be dismissed.
16) THERMODYNAMICS
The laws of thermodynamics are among the most Important in all of science. The science of thermodynamics involves study of energy transformations and the relationship between heat and work. Besides the far-reaching practical uses of the science, both cre¬ationists and evolutionists have used thermodynamics to bolster their respective sides.
First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law simply states that energy can neither be cre¬ated nor destroyed. Energy may be changed from one form into an¬other, but the total amount remains unchanged. Einstein showed that matter is just another form of energy: the two are equal as expressed by the equation: E = MC2. The release of destruc¬tive energy by atomic bombs demonstrates that matter can be transformed into energy on a sudden, colossal scale. We might restate the first law then in this way: the sum total of energy, including its form in matter, can neither be created nor destroyed.
How do our two propositions on origins measure up to this law? The evolutionist applies reductionism to nature. He explains that all entities have ultimately sprung from a parent of smaller stature and less complexity. Thus, man has come from primate, which has in turn come from mammal, which has come from reptile, which has come from amphibian, which has come from fish… pro¬tozoa… DNA… protein… nucleotides… amino acids… atoms… protons… neutrons… electrons… 0. The finale of evolutionary reductionism is zero—all things orig¬inally have come from nothing.
17) FIXITY VS TRANSFORMATIONS
Beginning with this chapter we will broaden the scope of our discussion by going beyond chemistry and the question of origins, to the biological level and the controversy on fixity versus transformations. This will take us into the fields of genetics, paleontology, geology, embryology and other disciplines that bear on the controversy. To this point we have, in some¬what of a theoretical fashion, talked about whether organisms should evolve or stay fixed. Now, however, we will concern our¬selves more with not whether they should, but whether organisms actually have evolved in the amoeba to man sense, or whether they actually have remained fixed in the creationist kind sense.
If we are to talk about biological change, we must talk genetics. If we are to talk about genetics, we must ultimately talk about DNA. In our previous chapters we have dealt with three questions about DNA:
1. Can the building blocks of DNA arise by chance?
2. Can the building blocks of DNA arrange themselves into sequences of information?
3. Can encoded DNA undergo spontaneous rearrangements resulting in new improved sequences generating more and more complex organisms?
18) NEO-DARWINISM
Natural selection is a process by which the environment se¬lects the most fit organisms for survival. Natural selection is believed to occur analogously to a farmer selecting breeding lines. If the farmer desires to increase his egg production, he will se¬lect for breeding purposes those chickens laying the largest and most eggs. The progeny from these chickens will then be examined to select those producing the best, and these in turn will be used to breed subsequent chickens. In this way, with time, careful se¬lection and surveillance, the farmer can increase his egg production.
Likewise, a changing environment is believed to select for survival those organisms most suited to live, and cull those not properly adapted. If members of each of the different varieties of dogs were suddenly forced into an arctic type environment, only those fit would survive. Thus the long legged, heavy coated breeds like the German Shepard, St. Bernard, Briard, Newfoundland, Nor¬wegian Elkhound and Husky would probably survive. But hardly would the Pekingese, Dachshund, Hairless Chihuahua, Pug or Manchester Terrier be able to withstand the cold or be able to maneuver in heavy snows to find game.
Natural selection as a means for evolutionary change was for¬mulated and popularized by Erasmus Darwin (Charles Darwin's grand¬father), Malthus, Spencer and most notably, Charles Darwin himself. Today, natural selection is thought to be a key mechanism for the evolution of life. The modern theory of evolution is termed neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is a combination of mutations and natural selection. Mutations are believed to provide the "sports," the variants, from which nature can select. As a baseball scout looks for athletes showing unique and superior abilities, so nature looks for mutants that are unique and superior. Neither mutations nor natural selection alone could account for evolution according to modern neo-Darwinists.
19) NEO-DARWINIST PREDICTIONS
If neo-Darwinism is a valid scientific conclusion, then we should be able to make predictions based upon it. If the predic¬tions are verified by observations then neo-Darwinism is given real credibility. If the predictions are contradicted by the data, then neo-Darwinism should be discarded in favor of a more adequate explanation of the data.
The following is a listing of predictions based upon neo-Darwinism along with creationistic rebuttals and counter-interpre¬tations.
-l-
• Prediction: Sub-populations with newly selected mutated characteristics should be more fit than the parent population.
Expert witness: C. H. Waddington, an evolutionist, states:
"If by selection we concentrate the genes acting in a certain direction, and produce a sub-population which differs from the original one by greater development of some character we are interested in (such as higher milk yield or production of eggs), we almost invariably find that the sub-population has simultaneously become less fit and would be eliminated by natural selection.” 1
Expert witness: The population geneticist, H. T. Band, con¬cluded from her work with fruit flies that those organisms showing a mutation and breeding true for it do not evidence increased via¬bility.2
20) GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
The record of the rocks is probably one of the most popular evidences used to demonstrate evolution. And doesn't the record show life to have great antiquity? Doesn't it in fact show a gradation of life over time from simple to complex? Yes it does—at least as we see that record presented in geology texts. The geologic timetable spreads life over about 2 billion years and depicts the least complex and smallest organisms as the oldest, and the most complex organisms as the youngest. The charts on historical geology are supposedly a representation of the historical record of life as it has been retained for our examination in the form of fossils. The geologic timetable is in chart form what we should find if we dug into the ground and examined the fossils of each successive strata. (Fig.105)
Is that the case? Can we dig into the ground and find the invariable progressive succession of life from the complex to the small? Further, upon what basis are the ages of the fossils determined?
21) ARGUMENTS FROM SIMILARITY
Carl Sagan wrote:
"The inner workings of terrestrial organ isms--from mi¬crobes to men—are so similar in their biochemical details as to make it highly likely that all organisms on the Earth have evolved from a single instance of the origin of life." 1
Much of the case for amoeba to man evolution is built upon arguments from similarity. Evolutionists argue that if similarity can be shown between organisms through comparative anatomy, embry¬ology, vestigial organs, cytology, blood chemistry, protein and DNA biochemistry... then evolutionary relationship can be proven. For example, as Sagan noted above, biochemical similarity among all creatures is taken to prove evolutionary relationship in a general biological sense. Additionally, man-primate similarities, amphibian-reptile similarities and amphibian-fish similarities prove relationships in a more specific sense.
Similarity, it is agreed, can show relationship. Note the similarities among closely related families of people or animals. Similarity, however, can also mean common design as can be noted by the similar features of different buildings designed by one architect. Obviously, creationists will opt for this latter in¬terpretation.
22) RENDERING A DECISION
Fredrich Nietzsche once wrote:
"No one can draw more out of things, books included, than he already knows. A man has no ears for that to which experience has given him no access."
How true this is. Man is a captive of his own biases, a slave to selfish prejudices. So much of what we see depends upon what we're looking for. However, contrary to this pessimism, men have and do rise above their own leanings. The combination to the lock that imprisons us is: turn toward the desire for truth; turn away from egotism; turn toward the willingness to act upon truth regardless of what it is; turn away from the goal of simply saving face; turn toward the eagerness to expose personal views to open dissection and criticism; turn away from hiding cherished opinions from out¬side attack; turn toward letting the facts, reality, force the conclusions; turn away from forcing conclusions on the facts.
We should all be interested in letting the creation-evolution controversy do more than entertain us. The information we have considered should, in conjunction with other facts we have at our disposal, be used to reach a conclusion. It is true that it's never too late to learn, let's not be among those who learn it too late.
In this final chapter we will summarize arguments, dismiss the complaint that "truth" on origins cannot be reached, and re¬view some methodological guidelines to allow us to make a decision.
