[Home] [Site map] [Updates] [Projects] [Contents; 2. Philosophy (1), (2), (3), (4) & (5); 3. Religion (1) & (2); 4. History (1), (2) & (3); 5. Science; 6. Environment (1), (2) & (3); 7. Origin of life (1), (2) & (3); 8. Cell & Molecular (1), (2) & (3); 9. Mechanisms (1), (2) & (3); 10. Fossil Record; 11. `Fact' of Evolution; 12. Plants; 13. Animals; 14. Man (1) & (2); 15. Social; 16. Conclusion; Notes; Bibliography A-C, D-F, G-I, J-M, N-S, T-Z] [Book "Problems of Evolution"]
"PROBLEMS OF EVOLUTION": 1. INTRODUCTION 1. Why the evolution controversy is not going away 1. Atheist philosopher Antony Flew's bombshell! 2. There is an evolution controversy 1. Gallup Poll 3. Why is there an evolution controversy? 4. Why is the evolution controversy not going away? 2. There are problems of evolution 1. Darwin's "Difficulties of the theory" 2. Many difficulties still remain 3. Evolution remains in a state of crisis 4. Evolutionists who have problems with evolution 1. Biologists 2. Other scientists 5. Evolutionists fragmenting into warring camps 6. Evolutionists have difficulty seeing problems of evolution 3. Purpose of this book 1. To comprehensively examine major problems of the theory of evolution 2. To balance evolutionists' unfair and one-sided presentation of the facts and arguments 3. To subject evolution to scientific and other criticism 4. To consider alternative hypotheses to evolution 4. Definition of "evolution" 1. Definitions of "evolution" 1. Cosmic "evolution" 2. Trivial variation 2. No agreed definition of "evolution" 3. "Evolution" defined so vaguely it cannot be false 4. Shifting definitions of "evolution" 5. The real definition of "evolution" 5. The Problem of Evolution 1. Hydrogen to humans (molecules to man) 6. Evolution is not an ultimate explanation 1. Evolution not an explanation of ultimate origins 2.Evolution cannot explain itself 3. Evolution is a theory of secondary development, not of original existence 4. Evolution cannot be the cause of its own necessary preconditions 5. Evolution can explain how but not why 6. Evolution, if true, would not disprove creation
"PROBLEMS OF EVOLUTION": 1. INTRODUCTION "Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to the theory." - Darwin, 1872, "The Origin of Species," p.156. My emphasis. "For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible.." - Darwin, 1872, "The Origin of Species," p.18. My emphasis. "The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him." - Proverbs 18:17. My emphasis. 1. Why the evolution controversy is not going away 1. Atheist philosopher Antony Flew's bombshell! In early December 2004, renowned atheist Dr Antony Flew, aged 81, dropped a bombshell! Flew, aged 81, emeritus professor of philosophy at Britain's Reading University, became an atheist at age 15 and had been a influential champion of atheism for more than a half-century (MSNBC, 2004a; Wavell & Iredale, 2004; Witt, 2004). Since the 1950s, Flew has argued that there wasn’t enough evidence for a creator (Witt, 2004). But Flew had now changed his mind, coming to believe in God based on the scientific evidence (MSNBC, 2004a; Wavell & Iredale, 2004; Witt, 2004 ). Flew has concluded that a super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature (MSNBC, 2004; Wavell & Iredale, 2004). Flew now describes himself as a deist, whose God is not actively involved in people’s lives (MSNBC, 2004a). He emphasised he was not a Christian, and he does not believe in an afterlife. (MSNBC, 2004a; Wavell & Iredale, 2004; Witt, 2004). However, Flew agreed that his God could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose (MSNBC, 2004a). For decades Flew had proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading universities in Britain, and in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates, underwent a gradual conversion from atheism to theism (MSNBC, 2004a). However, in 2001 rumours swept the Internet that Flew had renounced his atheism, or even had converted to Christianity, to which he issued a reply, "Sorry To Disappoint, but I’m Still an Atheist!" (Flew, 2001). However, the origin of the rumour was an article Flew had submitted to a humanist philosophical journal in which he conceded that the Big Bang and the apparent fine-tuning of the Universe, while falling short of proof, could reasonably be seen by theists as confirmatory evidence of their prior belief in a Creator (Flew, 2001). Flew says his "whole life has been guided by the principle of ... Follow the evidence, wherever it leads" (MSNBC, 2004a; Wavell & Iredale, 2004; Witt, 2004). He therefore came to the conclusion from "biologists’ investigation of DNA ... the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved" (MSNBC, 2004a; Wavell & Iredale, 2004). "It now seems to me," he says, "that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design (Witt, 2004). Being the author of a book called "Darwinian Evolution" (Flew, 1984), still accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts that it can explain the ultimate origins of life" (MSNBC, 2004a; Wavell & Iredale, 2004). Even if it can explain how organisms evolved, it does not explain where a living, self-reproducing organism come from in the first place (Witt, 2004). Flew wrote in a letter in the August-September issue of Britain’s Philosophy Now magazine, "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism." (MSNBC, 2004a; Flew, 2004). He had "been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature" (Wavell & Iredale, 2004). If we trace evolution backwards, we reach a primitive single cell than which nothing simpler could survive and reproduce (Witt, 2004). But then this first cell must be produced by something other than natural selection (Witt, 2004). Flew insists that the scientific establishment has simply failed to answer this question persuasively (Witt, 2004). But in taking issue with pre-biotic evolution, Flew is challenging the bedrock of modern materialism (Witt, 2004). He conceded that his current ideas had some similarity with those of "intelligent design" theorists" (MSNBC, 2004a). Flew is incorporating his revised ideas into the introduction to a new edition of one of his books, "God and Philosophy." In what must be the understatement of the year, Flew said, "I am certain I shall surprise a lot of people" (Wavell & Iredale, 2004). Those who admired his intellect when he was an atheist are already beginning to dismiss him as persona non grata for changing his mind (Wavell & Iredale, 2004; Witt, 2004). A Texas newspaper made the obvious connection: "If the scientific data are compelling enough to cause an atheist academic of Antony Flew's reputation to recant much of his life's work, why shouldn't Texas schoolchildren be taught the controversy?" (Dallas Morning News, 2004). The fact that Flew has been an atheist for the best part of 70 years, yet came to believe on the basis of the scientific evidence that fully naturalistic evolution is inadequate to explain the origin of the universe and life, it is now going to be untenable for evolutionists in the United States to continue to argue that Intelligent Design is just Biblical creationism and therefore should not be taught in schools under the Supreme Court's separation of church and State rulings. [top] 2. There is an evolution controversy It is a remarkable fact that today, in the twenty-first century, there is an evolution controversy, and moreover a controversy that shows no signs of going away and even may be escalating. This is despite the general public having taken in its stride every other scientific revolution. It is even more remarkable considering that this same general public has been on the receiving end of a half-century of monopolistic presentation of evolution in schools and the media, that has continued Darwin's policy of not "fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question" (Darwin, 1872, p.18). The thesis of this book is that the main reason the evolution controversy still exists, and is not going away, is because the public has learned more about evolution and so has become increasingly aware that there are serious problems of evolution, that have not gone away, and in fact are steadily being joined by new "difficulties of the theory." [top] 1. Gallup Poll [top] 3. Why is there an evolution controversy?[top] 4. Why is the evolution controversy not going away?[top] 2. There are problems of evolution 1. Darwin's "Difficulties of the theory" Charles Darwin in his Origin of Species devoted an entire chapter to "Difficulties of the Theory," in which he admitted that there remained "a crowd of difficulties," some of which still "staggered" him (Darwin, 1872, p.156). [top] 2. Many difficulties still remain Many of those difficulties with the theory of evolution still remain and some, like gaps in the fossil record, have become worse (Raup, 1979, pp.24-25). [top] 3. Evolution remains in a state of crisis The result is that the theory of evolution remains in a permanent state of paradigm crisis (Denton, 1985, pp.356-357). [top] 4. Evolutionists who have problems with evolution 1. Biologists Some leading biologists have problems with evolution. For example, the late Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History:[top]"`Evolution' can mean anything from the uncontroversial statement that bacteria `evolve' resistance to antibiotics to the grand metaphysical claim that the universe and mankind `evolved' entirely by purposeless, mechanical forces. A word that elastic is likely to mislead, by implying that we know as much about the grand claim as we do about the small one. That very point was the theme of a remarkable lecture given by Colin Patterson at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981. Patterson is a senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and the author of that museum's general text on evolution. His lecture compared creationism (not creation-science) with evolution, and characterized both as scientifically vacuous concepts which are held primarily on the basis of faith. Many of the specific points in the lecture are technical, but two are of particular importance for this introductory chapter. First, Patterson asked his audience of experts a question which reflected his own doubts about much of what has been thought to be secure knowledge about evolution: `Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing . . . that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said "I do know one thing-it ought not to be taught in high school." Patterson suggested that both evolution and creation are forms of pseudo-knowledge, concepts which seem to imply information but do not. One point of comparison was particularly striking. A common objection to creationism in pre-Darwinian times was that no one could say anything about the mechanism of creation. Creationists simply pointed to the `fact' of creation and conceded ignorance of the means. But now, according to Patterson, Darwin's theory of natural selection is under fire and scientists are no longer sure of its general validity. Evolutionists increasingly talk like creationists in that they point to a fact but cannot provide an explanation of the means. Patterson was being deliberately provocative, and I do not mean to imply that his skeptical views are widely supported in the scientific community. On the contrary, Patterson came under heavy fire from Darwinists after somebody circulated a bootleg transcript of the lecture, and he eventually disavowed the whole business. Whether or not he meant to speak for public attribution, however, he was making an important point. We can point to a mystery and call it `evolution,' but this is only a label. The important question is not whether scientists have agreed on a label, but how much they know about how complex living beings like ourselves came into existence. ... Colin Patterson's 1981 lecture was not published, but I have reviewed a transcript and Patterson restated his position, which I would label "evolutionary nihilism," in an interview with the journalist Tom Bethell. (See Bethell, "Deducing from Materialism," National Review, Aug. 29, 1986, p. 43.) I discussed evolution with Patterson for several hours in London in 1988. He did not retract any of the specific skeptical statements he has made, but he did say that he continues to accept `evolution' as the only conceivable explanation for certain features of the natural world." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second edition, 1993, pp.9- 10, 173) [top]2. Other scientists Non-biologist scientists are increasingly critical of evolution. For example, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Robert B. Laughlin notes that "Evolution by natural selection ... has lately come to function more as an antitheory":"Much of present-day biological knowledge is ideological. A key symptom of ideological thinking is the explanation that has no implications and cannot be tested. I call such logical dead ends antitheories because they have exactly the opposite effect of real theories: they stop thinking rather than stimulate it. Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause!" (Laughlin R.B., "A Different Universe," Basic Books: New York NY, 2005, pp. 168-169)"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? There is another theory, now quite out of favour, which is based upon the ideas of Lamarck: that if an organism needs an improvement it will develop it, and transmit it to its progeny. I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it. An animal particularly the human animal - is a beautiful example of a carefully contrived and subtly engineered design. The word 'design' comes naturally even in evolutionist books. The Designer must know infinitely more science than we shall ever know. He started off with a few simple examples and, learning from them, introduced new and improved species. He gradually incorporated new properties, imagination and free will being the latest ones. He is probably learning that these are not enough, since they seem to cultivate a propensity to self-destruction. I find these ideas comforting, for if we do destroy ourselves, a superior model will be created, whereas according to the theory of evolution we are doomed. I should be happy to know what my fellow physicists think of these admittedly extraordinary ideas. In putting them forward I can claim to be in good company. According to Darwin, when Newton put forward his theory of gravitation, Leibnitz accused him of introducing 'occult qualities and miracles into philosophy.' What was this gravitation? How could two inanimate bodies attract each other? Newton replied laconically 'Hypotheses non fingo'. When I am asked describe my ideas of the Creator I also say 'Hypotheses non fingo'!" (Lipson H.S., "A physicist looks at evolution", Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 4, May 1980, p.138)[top] 5. Evolutionists fragmenting into warring camps Evolutionists are fragmenting into publicly warring camps, e.g. "The Darwin Wars" (Brown, 1999) and "Dawkins vs. Gould" (Sterelny, 2001). "Gould ... a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with" (Maynard Smith, 1995). "Dennett, as Dawkins's publicist, manages to convert an already vitiated and improbable account into an even more simplistic and uncompromising doctrine. ... if T.H. Huxley truly acted as `Darwin's bulldog,' then it is hard to resist thinking of Dennett, in this book, as `Dawkins's lapdog.'(Gould, 1997) [top] 5. Evolutionists have difficulty seeing problems of evolution Despite the many problems of evolution, pointed out by critics for more than a century, most evolutionists tend to "overlook" these "difficulties for the theory" (Fothergill, 1952, p.5). Indeed, most evolutionists seem to have difficulty in even seeing any problems with evolution, or even admitting that there could be problems of evolution, as illustrated by this imaginary dialogue between Kerkut and one of his students: "Well, now, if you really understand an argument you will be able to indicate to me not only the points in favour of the argument but also the most telling points against it.' 'I suppose so, sir.' 'Good. Please tell me, then, some of the evidence against the theory of Evolution.' 'Against what, sir?' `The theory of Evolution.' 'But there isn't any sir.' - Master-pupil dialogue quoted by Professor G.A. Kerkut, of the University of Southampton, in The Implications of Evolution" (Hitching, 1982, p.9; Kerkut, 1960, pp.3-5). [top] 3. Purpose of this book 1. To comprehensively examine major problems of the theory of evolution The main purpose of this book is to comprehensively examine major problems of the theory of evolution. Most of these problems have been identified by evolutionists themselves, but not comprehensively. To the best of my knowledge, there are only two books by evolutionists with the words "problem(s)" and "evolution" in their titles, Mark Ridley's "The Problems of Evolution" (1985) and Stahl's "Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution" (1985). But these only address problems in specific areas of the theory of evolution and evolution itself is, of course, not (and indeed cannot be) questioned (Halvorson, 2003; Montefiore, 1985, p.75; Johnson, 1993d). [top] 2. To balance evolutionists' unfair and one-sided presentation of the facts and arguments At the beginning of his Origin of Species, Darwin posted a disclaimer that "scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived" and that a "fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question" but claiming that "this is here impossible" (Darwin, 1872, p.18). Yet neither Darwin, nor his followers ever did fully state and balance the facts and arguments on both sides of each question, and in fact have done their best to ensure that only their side of the question has been presented (Johnson, 2000, p.141). So a purpose of this book is to help balance that inherent unfairness and one-sidedness of evolutionary theory. [top] 3. To subject evolution to scientific and other criticism There is a wise saying that, "The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him" (Proverbs 18:17). A false theory can seem right if it is protected from criticism (Johnson, 1992a). Darwin's theory has in fact been protected from normal scientific criticism from the beginning (Conklin, 1943, p.147; Hitching, 1982, pp.247-249; Hunter, 2001, p.75; 1993, pp.149-151). And Darwin's theory, its modern, Neo-Darwinian form, is still protected from normal scientific criticism (Johnson 1990, p.15, 1992b; 1993c; 1994b, pp.11-12; 1995, p.190; 1996; Meyer, 2001). A major purpose of this book is to subject evolution to such scientific and other criticism. This is not to claim that all these criticisms are new, although some will be. Many criticisms of evolution have never been satisfactorily answered and therefore they remain valid, despite evolutionists' "habit of ignoring the most pertinent criticisms of their theory until they can decently call them out-of-date" (Berlinski, 1996)! [top 4. To consider alternative hypotheses to evolution It is a fundamental principle of science that "Proposing alternative explanations that can answer a question is good science" because "If we operate with a single hypothesis, especially one we favor, we may direct our investigation toward a hunt for evidence in support of this hypothesis." (Campbell, Reece & Mitchell, 1999, p.14). Yet evolutionists have in fact operated with only a single hypothesis, namely naturalism, and so have ruled out in advance all forms of supernatural creation, intervention, guidance and design (Huxley, 1942 p.457; Barzun, 1958, p.10; Dembski, 2002b, p.xv). Thus evolution was established (Leigh, 1999, p.495; Macbeth, 1971, pp.77-78), and now is maintained "by eliminating competing explanations, not by providing evidence" in its favour (Meyer, 1994, p.100; Johnson, 2000, p.141). A purpose of this book therefore is, in the interests of good science, to propose an alternative hypothesis to evolution. [top] 4. Definition of "evolution" 1. Definitions of "evolution" 1. Cosmic "evolution""This is one of the first public occasions on which it has been frankly faced that all aspects of reality are subject to evolution, from atoms and stars to fish and flowers, from fish and flowers to human societies and values- indeed, that all reality is a single process of evolution." (Huxley J.S., "The Evolutionary Vision," in Tax S. & Callender C., eds., "Evolution After Darwin: Issues in Evolution," University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, Vol. IL, 1960, p.249)"Furthermore, with the adoption of the evolutionary approach in nonbiological fields, from cosmology to human affairs, we are beginning to realize that biological evolution is only one aspect of evolution in general. Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution-a single process of self- transformation. Further analysis speedily reveals that this universal evolutionary process is divisible with three main sectors or phases- the inorganic or cosmological, the organic or biological, and the human or psychosocial. Each sector has its own characteristic mechanism of self- transformation and its own maximum rate of change, and each produces its own characteristic type of results." (Huxley J., "Evolution and Genetics," in Newman J.R., ed., "What Is Science?," [1955], Washington Square: New York NY, 1961, reprint, pp.294-295)"All phenomena have a historical aspect. From the condensation of nebulae to the development of the infant in the womb, from the formation of the earth as a planet to the making of a political decision, they are all processes in time; and they are all interrelated as partial processes within the single universal process of reality. All reality, in fact, is evolution, in the perfectly proper sense that it is a one-way process in time, unitary; continuous; irreversible; self-transforming; and generating variety and novelty during its transformations. I am quite aware that many people object to the use of the term evolution for anything but the transformations of living substance. But I think this is undesirably narrow. Some term is undoubtedly needed for the comprehensive process in all its aspects, and no other convenient designation exists at present save that of evolution. *" (Huxley J.S., "Evolution in Action," [1953], Penguin: Harmondsworth, Middlesex UK, 1963, reprint, p.12)"Is evolution a theory, a system or a hypothesis? It is much more: it is a general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light illuminating all facts, a curve that all lines must follow." (Teilhard de Chardin P., "The Phenomenon of Man," [1955], Fontana: London, 1967, Fifth impression, p.241)"`The people who believe in evolution ... really just sort of need to stand up and be counted,' said Richard Leventhal, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. `Evolution is the model that drives science. It's time to recognize that.'" (Matheson K., "Darwin’s birthday evolves into holiday," MSNBC/AP, February 9, 2006. Ellipses original)[top] 2. Trivial variationA good (or bad) example of how evolutionists use the same word "evolution" to describe "the whole of reality" (Julian Huxley) and also the colour variation in a caterpillar (which is not "going anywhere in the sense of survival of the fittest" and may not even "occur in the wild")!:
Scientists Force Evolution in the Lab, Livescience, Robert Roy Britt, 2 February 2006 ... Scientists have forced a little evolution in the laboratory, controlling whether a caterpillar becomes green or black. The color of the critter was made to vary with temperature during their development. The experiment reveals the basic hormonal mechanism underlying the evolution of such dual traits, the researchers report in the Feb. 3 issue of the journal Science. The study was done on Manduca sexta, a caterpillar commonly called the tobacco hornworm. Its larvae are normally green. A related species, Manduca quinquemaculata, becomes black or green depending on temperature. The idea was to use similar temperature shocks to evolve a similar change in M. sexta. Differing color traits induced by environmental factors are called polyphenisms. Similar differences show up in genetically identical ants, which can develop into queens, soldiers, or workers based on the hormones they're exposed to early in development. Similar hormonal differences can affect the specific color of a butterfly or bird. Scientists have not understood evolution's exact role in the differences. "There had been theoretical models to explain the evolutionary mechanism -- how selective pressures can maintain polyphenisms in a population, and why they don't converge gradually into one form or another," said Duke University graduate student Yuichiro Suzuki. "But nobody had ever started with a species that didn't have a polyphenism and generated a brand-new polyphenism." Suzuki and biology professor Frederik Nijhout worked with black mutants of the normally green M. sexta. The mutants have a lower level of a key hormone. The scientists subjected the black mutants to temperatures above 83 degrees Fahrenheit, and over a few generations two types developed. One group turned green and the other didn't. Importantly, the two groups were found to have distinctly different levels of the hormones. They then found that they could create green spots on black caterpillars by applying drops of the hormones at the right stage of development. And by thwarting the flow of hormones from head to body-they applied a little caterpillar tourniquet-they could prevent the greening. None of this looks to be going anywhere in the sense of survival of the fittest. The black and green caterpillars will all grow up basically the same. "The adult moths are identical, and so there is no obvious basis for the kind of selective mating that might genetically isolate two groups and eventually lead to new species," Nijhout told LiveScience. Because the variations are based on temperatures, and thus in the wild would be dependent on seasons, the two types would tend to occur at different times of the year and may never meet in nature, he said. The next step, the researchers said, is to see if the variations do indeed occur in the wild. [...][top] 2. No agreed definition of "evolution" The first major problem of evolution is that evolutionists cannot even agree on a definition of what "evolution" is! Ernst Mayr, hailed as the "world's greatest living evolutionary biologist" (Gould, 2001a), candidly admitted that "Evolution shows so many facets that it looks alike to no two persons" (Mayr, 1970, p.1)! A definition of "evolution" that is often given is "any change in allele (or gene) frequency in a population over time" (Dobzhansky, 1937, pp.11-12. Cf. Mayr E., 1988, p.529; Gould, 1983, p.335; Hartl, 1987, p.69; Ayala & Kiger, 1984, p.771; Boolootian & Stiles, 1981, p.668; Mader, 1990, p.326; Volpe, 1985, p.21). However, this definition is inadequate (Mayr E., 1982, p.611; Gould, 1977c, p.23; Gilbert, 1994, p.855; Dawkins, 1986a, p.135; Depew & Weber, 1995, p.393; Wilcox, 1994a, p.198; Lester & Bohlin, 1989, p.102; Plantinga, 1998; Ratzsch, 1996, pp.86-87; Savage, 1963, p.62). Mayr's own definition of "evolution," in the glossary of his book, "What Evolution Is," is "The gradual process by which the living world has been developing following the origin of life" (Mayr, 2001, p.286). But this is so vague that even the strictest creationist could agree with it; therefore it is useless. If Mayr, the "world's greatest living evolutionary biologist", cannot supply an adequate scientific definition of "evolution," in a book titled "What Evolution Is," then it is a reasonable assumption that evolutionists have no agreed, adequate scientific definition of "evolution"! [top] 3. "Evolution" defined so vaguely it cannot be false A favourite tactic of evolutionists, is to define "evolution" so vaguely that it cannot be false. For example, Carl Zimmer, in his book based on the USA PBS television series "Evolution," titled "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea," defines "evolution" as "change, nothing more or less" (Zimmer C., 2001, p.135)! 4. Shifting definitions of "evolution" The lack of an agreed definition of "evolution" enables evolutionists to employ the tactic of a shifting definition of "evolution." (Johnson, 1997a, pp.44-45; Hastie, 2001, p.5; Behe, 1996a, p.288). This is a form of the fallacy of equivocation (ReMine, 1993, p.107). The use of slippery definitions is like a shell and pea game (ReMine, 1993, p.107; Wilcox, 1990, p.1:1). The fallacy of equivocation becomes clear when we substitute Neo-Darwinism's co-founder Theodosius Dobzhansky's definition of "evolution" as "a change in the genetic composition of populations" (Dobzhansky, 1937, pp.11-12) into his famous claim that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (Dobzhansky, 1973). Then we have: "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of a change in the genetic composition of populations"! [top] 5. The real definition of "evolution" However, there is a definition of "evolution" which is what mainstream science believes and that is "the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but GOD HAD NO PART IN THIS PROCESS.'" (Shermer, 2002. My emphasis). That this is the real definition of "evolution" within mainstream science is evident in that mainstream science will not permit even the most naturalistic of theistic evolutionist explanations within science, such as that of today's Kenneth Miller, where even "the idea of purpose" is too much (Palevitz, 2000) or yesteryear's Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, whose views were rejected out of hand as "pious bunk" (Medawar, 1966, p.xi). Also, dictionaries of biology (Abercrombie, et al., 1990, pp.194-195; Hale & Margham, 1988, p.214; Tootill, 1981, p.108), science (Isaacs, Daintith & Martin, 1991, pp.183, 251-252; Lafferty & Rowe, 1996, p.222) and philosophy (Vesey & Foulkes, 1990, p.108), define "evolution" as being opposed to "special creation". The real definition of "evolution," therefore, is `however it happened, God didn't do it' (Hunter, 2003, p.10; Johnson, 1992f)! [top] 5. The Problem of Evolution 1. Hydrogen to humans (molecules to man) The problem of evolution is that, if supernatural intervention by God is ruled out, then evolution must ultimately claim that hydrogen gas, over time, became humans! Or as the creationist astronomer George Mulfinger put it, the evolutionist's claim must be that "hydrogen is an odorless, tasteless, invisible gas which, if given enough time, becomes people" (Gish, 1993, p.154; Morris, 1995). Lest this be dismissed as a creationist straw man, a leading evolutionist, the late Carl Sagan affirmed that "all the creatures of our Earth," including human beings, are but "the latest manufactures of the galactic hydrogen industry," just "some of the things that hydrogen atoms do, given fifteen billion years of cosmic evolution" (Sagan, 1980, pp.337-339). Julian Huxley, co-founder of the modern Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, affirmed that, "the whole of reality is evolution-a single process of self-transformation," a "universal evolutionary process ... divisible with three main sectors or phases-the inorganic or cosmological, the organic or biological, and the human or psychosocial" (Huxley, 1955, pp.294-295); that "All reality, in fact, is evolution ... a one-way process in time, unitary; continuous; irreversible; self-transforming; and generating variety and novelty during its transformations" (Huxley, 1953, p.12); and that "all aspects of reality are subject to evolution, from atoms and stars to fish and flowers, from fish and flowers to human societies and values-indeed, that all reality is a single process of evolution." (Huxley, 1964, p.78). A variation on this ultimate claim of "the standard scientific theory" of evolution in which "God had no part" (Shermer, 2002) is evolution from "molecules to man" (and cognates), which term evolutionists themselves have used both to describe evolution (Scott, 1985, p.30; Van Till, 1996), and as a title of evolutionary books (Bendall, 1983; Welch, 1976; Stebbins, 1982; Messel & Butler, 1971). However, even Darwin struggled with this the problem of evolution, "the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity" (Barlow, 1958, pp.92-93). [top] 6. Evolution is not an ultimate explanation 1. Evolution not an explanation of ultimate origins Evolution is not an explanation of ultimate origins (Hodge, 1892, p.2:10). Evolution can perhaps explain formation but not creation (Shedd, 1888, p.1:504) [top] 2."The Host's Farewell. If, as returning host, I reflect on the whole pilgrimage of which I have been a grateful part, my overwhelming reaction is one of amazement. Amazement not only at the extravaganza of details that we have seen; amazement, too, at the very fact that there are any such details to be had at all, on any planet. The universe could so easily have remained lifeless and simple -just physics and chemistry, just the scattered dust of the cosmic explosion that gave birth to time and space. The fact that it did not -the fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice. And even that is not the end of the matter. Not only did evolution happen: it eventually led to beings capable of comprehending the process, and even of comprehending the process by which they comprehend it." (Dawkins R., "The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 2004, p.613)Similarly, Gould nominated "as most worthy of pure awe ... the continuity of ... earthly life, for at least 3.5 billion years, without a single microsecond of disruption:"And within the smaller, but still tolerably ample, compass of our planetary home, I would nominate as most worthy of pure awe-a metaphorical miracle, if you will-an aspect of life that most people have never considered, but that strikes me as equal in majesty to our most spiritual projections of infinity and eternity, while falling entirely within the domain of our conceptual understanding and empirical grasp: the continuity of etz chayim, the tree of earthly life, for at least 3.5 billion years, without a single microsecond of disruption. Consider the improbability of such continuity in conventional terms of ordinary probability: Take any phenomenon that begins with a positive value at its inception 3.5 billion years ago, and let the process regulating its existence proceed through time. A line marked zero runs along below the current value. The probability of the phenomenon's descent to zero may be almost incalculably low, but throw the dice of the relevant process billions of times, and the phenomenon just has to hit the zero line eventually. For most processes, the prospect of such an improbable crossing bodes no permanent ill, because an unlikely crash (a year, for example, when a healthy Mark McGwire hits no home runs at all) will quickly be reversed, and ordinary residence well above the zero line reestablished. But life represents a different kind of ultimately fragile system, utterly dependent upon unbroken continuity. For life, the zero line designates a permanent end, not a temporary embarrassment. If life ever touched that line, for one fleeting moment at: any time during 3.5 billion years of sustained history, neither we nor a million species of beetles would grace this planet today. The merest momentary brush with voracious zero dooms all that might have been, forever after. When we consider the magnitude and complexity of the circumstances required to sustain this continuity for so long, and without exception or forgiveness in each of so many components-well, I may be a rationalist at heart, but if anything in the natural world merits a designation as "awesome," I nominate the continuity of the tree of life for 3.5 billion years. The earth experienced several ice ages, but never froze completely, not for a single day. Life fluctuated through episodes of global extinction, but never crossed the zero line, not for one millisecond. DNA has been working all this time, without an hour of vacation or even a moment of pause to remember the extinct brethren of a billion dead branches shed from an evergrowing tree of life. When Protagoras, speaking inclusively despite the standard translation, defined "man" as "the measure of all things," he captured the ambiguity of our feelings and intellect in his implied contrast of diametrically opposite interpretations: the expansion of humanism versus the parochiality of limitation. Eternity and infinity lie too far from the unavoidable standard of our own bodies to secure our comprehension; but life's continuity stands right at the outer border of ultimate fascination: just close enough for intelligibility by the measure of our bodily size and earthly time, but sufficiently far away to inspire maximal awe." (Gould S.J., "I Have Landed," in "I Have Landed: Splashes and Reflections in Natural History," [2002], Vintage: London, 2003, pp.14-15)That is, both these leading evolutionists tacitly admit that evolution depends on something other than itself, for its very existence. [top] 3. Evolution is a theory of secondary development, not of original existence Evolution is a theory of development, which presupposes the prior existence of that from which it develops, since non-existence cannot develop into existence (Berkhof, 1958, p.160). Evolution therefore cannot take the place of the doctrine of creation (Berkhof, 1958, p.160). Simpson, a co-founder of Neo-Darwinism, admitted that "the origin of that cosmos and the causal principles of its history remain unexplained and inaccessible to science" and are ultimately referable to the "hidden ... First Cause sought by theology and philosophy" (Simpson, 1949, p.278; Wright, 1989, p.19; Johnson, 1993b, p.116). [top] 4. Evolution cannot be the cause of its own necessary preconditions It is a logical impossibility for evolution to be the cause of its own necessary preconditions. Therefore, even if evolution was proved true, the existence of evolution itself would need to be explained (Dabney, 1871, p.37; Livingstone, 1987, p.125). It is "not just any universe ... in which Darwinian evolution would work" (Leslie, 1989, p.108). The Darwinian `blind watchmaker', natural selection, depends on the "forces of physics" being "deployed in a very special way" (Dawkins, 1986, p.5. My emphasis). Biological evolution would not be possible if the hereditary substrate was not just right, for example if inheritance were blending instead of particulate (Orr, 1996). And the laws of heredity are dependent on the laws of chemistry, which in turn are dependent on the laws of quantum mechanics. For example, Pauli's exclusion principle, by which no more than two electrons can occupy any one orbital. As Oxford Professor of Chemistry and militant atheist Peter Atkins explains: "This is an extraordinarily deep principle of quantum mechanics: it can be traced to foundations embedded in the structure of spacetime, and is perhaps the deepest of all [Chemistry] principles ... it is handed down on stone tablets as an axiom, from whatever hand carves axioms." (Atkins, 1995, pp.116-117). So ultimately these laws of nature on which evolution depends, are referred back to the initial conditions at the origin of the universe (Hodge, 1879, p.40). [top] 5. Evolution can explain how but not why Evolution at best could only be an explanation of how but not why (Strong, 1907, p.76). [top] 6. Evolution, if true, would not disprove creation If evolution was proved true, it would require only a minor reinterpretation of Genesis 1, as mediate creation, or creation by law (Strong, 1907, p.392).
Copyright © 2003-2006, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. This page and its contents
may be used for non-commercial purposes only.
If used on the Internet, a link back to my home page at
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones would be appreciated.
Created: 3 November, 2003. Updated: 12 March, 2006.