|
BY EVOLUTION, NOT CREATION A)
Two forms of Biblical Creationism (2) Old-earth biblical creationism: the same theory as the above except that the creation is claimed to have occurred much longer than 6000 years ago. According to one version, the creative "days" mentioned in the Bible were each thousands (perhaps millions) of years in duration. Many liberal Christians accept that idea. According to another version, there was a gap of millions of years between two different creations: one alluded to in Gen. 1:1, and another starting with Gen. 1:2. The first creation, which God destroyed before starting over, is the one that had the dinosaurs, etc., which are revealed in fossils. Some fundamentalists support this second version. B)
Evidence for an old earth, an old universe, and old life forms Uranium-238 to Lead-206, with a half-life of 4.5 billion years. Uranium-235 to Lead-207, with a half-life of 713 million years. Thorium-232 to Lead-208, with a half-life of 14.1 billion years. Rubidium-87 to Strontium-87, with a half-life of 47 billion years. Potassium-40 to Argon-40 + Calcium-40, with a half-life of 1.3 billion years. By measuring the relative proportion of "parent element" to "daughter element" in rocks found in nature, the age of the rocks can be ascertained. Different radiometric dating methods have been used to compute the age of the earth, and they all agree that it is about 4.6 billion years. Furthermore, just counting the radioactive isotopes found in nature provides good evidence for an old earth. Except for certain special cases, none of the ones with a relatively short half-life are found, whereas they should be there if the earth were young. But all of the ones with a relatively long half-life are found. Young-earth theory cannot adequately explain any of this! (2) Astronomy. On the basis of the computed distance of the most distant stellar objects and the known (constant) speed of light, it is established that the "Big Bang", from which our present universe originated, took place more than 10 billion years ago. Even old-earth creationism does not usually concede such an ancient universe. And if the Bible implies (at Gen. 1:16) that the earth was in existence before the stars, then it is definitely in error. (3) Geology. On the basis of the number of laminations of sedimentary rock observed at various places (such as the Grand Canyon, Wyoming's Green River Canyon, and many others) and their known rate of formation, it is computed that the earth must be at least many hundreds of millions of years old. Such great ages for the earth can also be computed from other sources, such as limestone deposits in caves and the buildup of great coral reefs, which are known to form very slowly. Furthermore, when the ages for various rocks are computed by several different methods, (including radiometric dating), the results are found to be in agreement. (4) Paleontology. Fossils of invertebrate animals have been found embedded in rock that has been dated by several methods to be over 600 million years old. If the Bible implies that there was no life on earth much over 6000 years ago, then it's in error. Even old-earth creationism does not usually concede that animals have been around for hundreds of millions of years. If it were to concede that, then it would have a hard time explaining what God was up to during all that time and why he waited so long before creating human beings. C)
The theory of evolution (2) Darwin speculated that random mutations would give rise to new characteristics, some small proportion of them having a selective advantage in the struggle for survival. By natural selection (or the "survival of the fittest"), those characteristics would be retained and passed on to offspring. This explains how it is that various species have a natural environment that seems ideally suited for them. It is not that God created the environment to suit the organism, but rather that the organism evolved to fit the environment, and in the process won out over many competitors who were not quite as well adapted for that particular environment. (3) According to the theory of chemical evolution, life first arose on our planet after hundreds of millions of years of chemical reactions among organic compounds of increasing complexity. Water, ammonia, methane, and other simple compounds gave rise to amino acids, which combined to form enzymes and proteins. Some scientists speculate that some of the organic materials involved in the process came to earth from outer space in the form of meteorites. There is proof that outer space contains much organic material. Eventually, DNA or RNA or some other complex self-replicating molecule developed, and that was the earliest life form. At a later time, the earliest cells were formed, and there are hypotheses about how that might have occurred. All of these steps in the process of chemical evolution, including cell formation, have been shown by scientists in recent decades to be possible. Although scientists have not as yet run the whole thing through in the laboratory, producing cellular life from the simplest starting compounds by purely natural causes, their experiments have been continually supporting the hypothesis that chemical evolution did indeed take place on our planet. (4) Some creationists have "computed" that the formation of life from non-life by chemical evolution is extremely improbable. But their "computations" are worthless because they are based on many assumptions that have been proven false by scientists. Among those false assumptions is the claim that proteins must assemble from their components all at once instead of in stages, that every functional protein must be composed of the same specific sequence of amino acids, that no small chains of nucleotides are capable of self-replication, and that proto-cells must have been as complex as modern cells. All these claims are just dead wrong. Orgel & Eigen and others, for example, have demonstrated that RNA nucleotides spontaneously form small chains (no more than 25 amino acids in length) and that these chains spontaneously proceed to self-replicate. Self-replication has even been shown to occur in inorganic materials (like clay) and some scientists theorize that that process could have been a basis for later organic self-replication. Creationist computations of the impossibility of chemical evolution are similar to the old computations allegedly showing that steamships could never carry enough fuel to cross the Atlantic Ocean and the well-known aerodynamic computations showing that it is mathematically impossible for bumblebees to fly. (5) Some creationists claim that evolution is incompatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, according to which systems must always move in the direction of greater disorder, or entropy, never in the direction required by evolution. But that is simply based on a misunderstanding. The Second Law just says that in all energy exchanges and conversions, if no energy leaves or enters the system under study, then the potential energy of the final state will always be less than the potential energy of the initial state. But this is perfectly compatible with evolution, which occurs only in open systems in which new energy (such as from the sun) continually enters. Actually, if the potential energy of the total system, including the sun, were to be measured, while chemical and biological evolution were going on within the system, then that energy would be found to decrease (which means that the entropy would be found to increase). That result is perfectly in accord with both the theory of evolution and the Second Law. D)
Evidence in support of the theory of biological evolution (2) In the spectrum from the simplest life forms to the most complex, there are no sizable gaps. [See section E, below.] (3) The earliest fossils of simpler organisms (such as fish and insects) are, without exception, only found in older rocks, and in general, the simpler the organisms, the older the rocks in which it is found. [See the ages of various organisms mentioned above in section C1.] (4) Geographically isolated organisms (such as those on Australia or Madagascar or the Galapagos Islands) always differ radically from those of related species found on the mainland. Even "islands" of forest in Africa that are separated by vast plains have unique species, not found anywhere else. Creationism has no way to explain this except by appeal to God's whim. (5) An evolutionary tree has been constructed on the basis of anatomical similarities among animals. Another one has been constructed on the basis of similarities among them in the amino-acid sequence of their blood proteins. The two trees are alike. This supports the idea that species evolved from other species. Anatomical similarities, such as, for example, that between humans and chimpanzees, are not superficial, but correspond to deep genetic similarities. Humans and chimpanzees have amino-acid sequences that are 98% identical, which is closer than that of most pairs of different species within the same genus. (6) Many animals have vestigial organs, which are useful in other species. This is well explained by the theory of evolution. As one species evolves from another, it does not take from it just useful characteristics, but some useless ones as well, since evolution is the result of random mutations. One example of vestigial organs is wisdom teeth in humans, which were quite useful to the Australopithecines from which humans evolved, as borne out by the fossils discovered. (7) In early stages of development within the uterus, human embryos resemble various lower animals, which suggests that those animals were in humanity's evolutionary background. (8) New species of organisms have recently emerged in nature. Five species of moths found only in Hawaii and which feed only on bananas must have evolved within the past 1000 years, since before that time there were no bananas in Hawaii. Also, canine parvovirus is a disease of dogs that evolved from feline parvovirus within the past 20 years. There are dozens of other examples of this process. Furthermore, scientists have been able to produce new species in the laboratory. New species of insects, new species of bacteria, even new species of mice, have all been produced. In agricultural work, the production of new plant species is quite routine. Even new genuses have been produced, such as Triticale (a type of wheat), which itself has many different species. We can infer from the recent appearance of new species that that is what might have happened over time in the past. E)
Intermediate forms (2) Intermediate forms between amphibians and reptiles (Seymouria, similar to tree frogs that inhabit Australian deserts) have been found. They have no tadpole stage but breed completely on land. Some have an egg tooth similar to that of reptiles. (3) Intermediate forms between reptiles and mammals (cynodonts) have been found. They had a reptilian skull and reptilian toes. But (like mammals and unlike reptiles) they had specialized teeth. Though their neck bones were distinctively mammalian, their jaw structure was intermediate. Furthermore, in Australia, there are egg-laying mammals (such as the duck-billed platypus), which may be regarded as intermediate between reptiles and mammals. Among other things, they have the lower metabolic rate characteristic of reptiles. (4) Intermediate forms between reptiles and birds (including the Archaeopteryx, and others) have been found. They had a completely reptilian skeleton, including teeth and reptilian claws and tail, and the earliest fossils of them were taken to be 100% reptiles, yet it was later established that they had feathers and flew like birds. (5) Intermediate forms between lower primates and humans (Australopithecines) have been found. They walked on two legs, though their skeleton and skull were apelike. They lived in Africa more than two million years ago. Later forms (homo habilis and homo erectus) had a still larger cranium, though only half as large as that of modern humans, and are known to have used tools and fire. Neanderthals, which lived on earth about 100,000 years ago, had a still larger cranium, though their skull structure (with characteristically prominent brow and large jaw) was distinctly primitive. They used still more advanced tools and followed religious practices in burying their dead. Although DNA testing has recently shown that modern man is not directly descended from the Neanderthals, they can still be regarded to be an intermediate form. Cro-Magnon Man, who lived on earth about 30,000 years ago (which is still way too old for young-earth creationists) was quite modern in appearance. He is perhaps best known for his cave drawings. F)
Biblical errors (2) The order of creation can't be right. The story has fruit trees and other plants created before the sun (Gen. 1:11-19), but that is impossible. Plants can't survive without sunlight. Also, what sense could it make to say, as in the Bible, that the sun was created on the fourth day? What marked "days" before that? (3) How could the earth go around the sun if the earth came first and the sun later? The Bible seems to presuppose a geocentrist cosmology. It proclaims that the earth does not move (1 Chron. 16:30, Psalms 93:1, 96:10). And it should be noted that these problems (incorrect order of creation, stationary earth, etc.) plague old-earth creationism just as much as they do the young-earth version of the story. (4) According to the Bible, birds were in existence before reptiles and insects (things which "creep upon the earth" as in Gen. 1:25). But scientists have established that the reptiles and insects are much older. (See C1, above.) The Bible story also places whales in existence before "creeping things" (Gen. 1:21-24), but the fossil record shows whales to be relatively recent, with over 200 million years separating them from the earliest reptiles and insects. Finally, the Bible has fruit trees in existence before animals (Gen. 1:12,21), but the fossil record proves that there were animals on the earth many hundreds of millions of years before there were any fruit trees. (5) The Bible implies that there were no carnivores prior to the Fall (Gen. 1:29-30; Rom. 5:12,14,17; 1 Cor. 15:21). But science has shown that carnivorous animals have existed for hundreds of millions of years. For example, some fossilized dung contains fragments of bone, teeth, and hair. The strontium content of some bones is that known for carnivores. And some fossilized teeth are sharp, as opposed to flat, etc. Even the fact that prehistoric humans had hunting tools disconfirms the Biblical account. Finally, from facts about the bodily makeup of such animals as spiders, fish, reptiles, felines, etc., it is clearly false that there was once a time when such animals were herbivorous. (6) According to Gen. 1:21-25,31, the time span from the first appearance of fish on our planet to the first appearance of mammals was one day. But science has definitely established that the actual time span was over a quarter of a billion years. Even old-earth creationists cannot bring themselves to equate a biblical “day” with many hundreds of millions of years. It simply needs to be granted that the Bible is in error on this point (and other points of scientific fact as well). G)
Biblical creationism is an inferior explanation (2) The "higher-hill" analogy. Suppose a man is found dead in a wheelchair at the top of a hill on an otherwise uninhabited island. We want to know how he got up there from his house, which is down on the flat. There are no vehicles or large animals around. Two theories are put forward: (a) The "slow-climb" theory: the man managed to maneuver his wheelchair up a steep path that leads to the top of the hill. This idea is flawed by the fact that it would have been very very difficult for anyone to do such a climb in a wheelchair. (b) The "higher-hill" theory. Alongside the hill on which the man was found, there is a higher hill, with a straight smooth path leading down it and connecting with the path going up the smaller hill. According to the second theory, the man started from the top of the higher hill and coasted down it with such speed that it carried him right to the top of the smaller hill. Then he had a heart attack and died in his wheelchair. The main drawback to this theory is that it does not explain how the man could have gotten from his house up to the top of the higher hill. For him to do it by a slow climb in his wheelchair would have been far more difficult than for him to get up the smaller hill in that way. Suppose you need to explain how the man got to the top of the hill where his body was found and all other explanations have been ruled out. You must choose between the slow-climb theory and the higher-hill theory. Which one would you prefer? All scientists would prefer the slow-climb theory because, despite its flaws, it does get us closer to understanding what might have happened. All that the higher-hill theory does is to replace one mystery (“How did he get up the smaller hill?”) by an even greater mystery (“How did he get up the higher hill?”). So it does not move us any closer to understanding what might have happened. It moves us farther away. The theory of evolution is like the slow-climb theory. It may be incomplete, but it is not impossible. Scientists are still investigating how evolution (the "slow climb") might have occurred and they are continually getting closer to a complete explanation. The theory of creation is like the higher-hill theory. It says that our planet and all the beings on it were created by a higher being. But it does not explain either the origin of that higher being or how he ever did any creating. Nor does it provide any details regarding the nature of the creator. So instead of moving us closer to illumination and understanding, it only moves us farther away, for it does nothing but replace one mystery by an even greater mystery. That makes it worthless, so far as explanation is concerned. The theory may have some value within religion, but it has none whatsoever in science. Scientists always seek illumination and understanding, never greater mysteries. For this reason (among others), biblical creationism should be regarded as an inferior theory or explanation of origins. |