>insert title here<

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students,'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'

'Yes sir,' the student says.

'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely.'

'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes.'

'Are you good or evil?

'The Bible says I'm evil.'

The professor grins knowingly.'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a moment.'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good...!'

'I wouldn't say that.'

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'

The student does not answer, so the professor continues.'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?'

The student remains silent.

'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'

'Er...yes,' the student says.

'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one.'No.'

'Then where does Satan come from?'

The student falters.'From God'

'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'

'Yes, sir.'

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes.'

'So who created evil?' The professor continued,'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer.'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'

The student squirms on his feet.'Yes.'

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question.'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.'Tell me,' he continues onto another student.'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'

The student's voice betrays him and cracks.'Yes, professor, I do.'

The old man stops pacing.'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'

'No, sir, I have not.'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes.'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'

'Nothing,' the student replies.'I only have my faith.'

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats.'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own.'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'

'Yes,' the professor replies.'There's heat.'

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.'

'Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation.'What is night if it isn't darkness?'

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.'

'In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester.'So what point are you making, young man?'

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time.'Flawed? Can you explain how?'

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'

'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.'

'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.'

The student looks around the room.'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.

'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.'

'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers.'I guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues.'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'

Now uncertain, the professor responds,'Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

To this the student replied,'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

The professor smiles and nods at his student. Albert Einstien.

Part 5: The Cambrian Explosion

Introduction
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Continuing with Dr. Jay Wile and Marilyn Durnell...

Word count: 1,192
Estimated reading time: 6-9 minutes

Before we leave our discussion of the fossil record, we have to mention probably the greatest problem that faces macroevolutionists today. The problem exists as a result of some fossils that were “rediscovered” in the mid-1980s, and based on those fossils, we know that at least the bottom portion of the geological column as presented in Figure 9.2 (and all introductory biology and geology textbooks to our knowledge) is incorrect. You see, as presented in Figure 9.2, the geological column is used to give the impression that the fossil record indicates that only the “simplest” multicellular life existed in the years represented by the Cambrian rock (570-500 million years ago), and then through the years represented by the Ordovician rock (500-435 million years ago), the life got more complex. This supposedly continued through to the times represented by the Silurian rock (410-435 million years ago) as well as the time represented by Devonian rock (360-410 million years ago). As a result, the diverse life that we see in the oceans did not fully evolve until about 400 million years ago. Now remember, all of these numbers for how many millions of years ago these things happened are based on a lot of assumptions, and we don't have time to go into those assumptions. However, we are discussing how macroevolutionists interpret the geological column, and this is how they do it.

Based on the “rediscovery” we mentioned earlier, we now know that the macroevolutionists' view of the lower layers of the geological column is simply false. What do we mean by “rediscovery?” Well, in the early 1900s, Charles Walcott (a paleontologist) discovered a lot of fossils in a layer of Cambrian rock called the “Burgess Shale.” However, these fossils were not what Walcott expected. Remember, according to the geological column, only the “simplest” of multicellular life was supposed to have existed in the times represented by Cambrian rock. However, Walcott found thousands of fossils of very complex life. In fact, by the time the collection was complete, Walcott had found representatives from every major animal phylum that exists in our classification scheme (see Figure 9.5 below).

What did this stunning discovery mean? It meant that the bottom of the geological column as presented in textbooks (still to this day) is wrong. Walcott found fossils of the “simple” animals that were supposed to be in Cambrian rock, but he also found thousands of examples of animals that were too complex to have evolved in the short time represented by Cambrian rock. According to the geological column, some of these animals were supposed to have formed much, much later, in the times represented by Silurian and Devonian rock. Why in the world were these complex fossils found in Cambrian rock? Walcott had no real answer to that question.

In other words, Walcott had discovered something revolutionary! This was a find that would radically alter the scientific world's understanding of the geological column. What, then, do you think he did? What would you do if you discovered something so revolutionary? I would think that you would publicize it so that the whole world would see it. That's not what Walcott did, however. He wrote a few modest articles in an extremely obscure scientific journal (Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection), and then he reburied the fossils in his laboratory drawers, and he never mentioned them again. It would be 80 years before the fossils were “rediscovered” and their importance understood.

What is their importance? As we mentioned, they tell us that the first few layers of the geological column as presented in the geological column are simply false. After all, the geological column pictures the animals in the “simple” phyla evolving into the animals of the more complex phyla over a period of about 170 million years (from Cambrian rock to somewhere in the middle of Devonian rock). This, however, is not what the fossils say. The fossils discovered by Walcott (more than 60,000 in all, some of which are reconstructed in the figure below) and those discovered later by others tell us that all of the major animal phyla can be found in Cambrian rock.

These fossils lead to a serious problem for macroevolution. All macroevolutionists agree that macroevolution takes a long time. No one presently understands how such a huge amount of evolution could have taken place in the relatively “short” time supposedly represented by Cambrian rock. Even if the currently-assumed ages for Cambrian rock are correct, it took “only” 70 million years for evolution to go from the simplest animal phyla to the most complex animal phyla. At present, no one understands how this could have happened in the context of macroevolution. In fact, the problem is so well-known in the field of paleontology, it has a name. It is called the Cambrian Explosion, which refers to the fact that there seems to have been an “explosion” of life in Cambrian times.

Not only is the “short” time a problem for macroevolution, but the fossils themselves present a real problem as well. Even though the fact that there are no intermediate links in the fossil record is a well-known problem for macroevolution, the problem is much more dramatic in Cambrian rock. After all, a huge amount of macroevolution had to have occurred in the time represented by Cambrian rock, but there is just no evidence for it. There aren't even possible transitional forms like Archaeopteryx or Australopithecus. In fact, the creatures that are fossilized in Cambrian rock just appear there suddenly, exactly as you would expect if each of these creatures was simply made by God.

One of the most honest summaries of the problem that the Cambrian Explosion presents to macroevolution is given by prominent macroevolutionist Richard Dawkins:
(block quote) It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative. (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, [New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996], 229-230) (block quote)

Notice how honest Dr. Dawkins is in this quote. He tells us that the fossils seem to have just “appeared” there, without any evidence of evolution whatsoever. He says that both schools of macroevolutionists (we will discuss what “Punctuationists” and “Gradualists” are later) agree that even though the fossils seem to indicate that the creatures were created divinely, they must reject that notion, and they must therefore assume that the appearance of “planting” is just due to imperfections in the fossil record. What does he mean by “imperfections?” He means that the intermediate links did, indeed, exist, but they just happened to have not been fossilized. This is what you are forced to believe if you look at the fossil record and reject the most obvious conclusion that it presents: that the organisms preserved there were divinely created.

Part 4: The Details of the Fossil Record: Evidence Against Macroevolution

Introduction
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

More on the series on Evolution with Dr. Jay Wile and Marilyn Durnell...

Word count: 3,238
Estimated reading time: 12-15 minutes

Well, if the geological column holds no real evidence for or against macroevolution, where must we look next? We can look the same place Darwin did. After examining the geological column, Darwin looked at the details of the fossil record. The study of the fossil record is called paleontology (pay' lee un tah' luh jee), and it provides strong evidence against macroevolution.

Paleontology – The study of fossils

If macroevolution did occur, paleontologists should be able to find series of fossils that demonstrate how one species slowly evolved into another. If wild dogs, for example, did eventually give rise to horses, then there should be fossils of animals that are somewhere between a dog and a horse. Darwin called these life forms (which he assumed must have existed) intermediate varieties. Today, we call them intermediate links or transitional forms, because they represent a link (or transition) between one species and another. Unfortunately for Darwin, there were only a few examples of fossils that might be interpreted to be intermediate links, and even for those fossils, their status as intermediate links was quite questionable.

This lack of intermediate links was the most vexing problem that Darwin had with his hypothesis. In fact, in his book, he stated:
(block quote) Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide than they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this not having been affected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which can be raised against my views. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th ed, [New York, NY: Collier Books, 1962], 462) (block quote)

Notice what he says here. Darwin's hypothesis says that one species eventually led to another. Thus, there should be “fine, intermediate varieties” of fossils in between species. The fact that there weren't was a problem that he called “grave.” Additionally, note that he admits there are “many objections” which can be raised against his views. As we stated before, Darwin was very open about the flaws that he saw in his macroevolutionary hypothesis. In fact, he devoted many pages of his book to detailing the many objections which could be raised against his views!

Although Darwin could not find any good examples of intermediate links in the fossil record, he had a hope. He figured that geology and paleontology were still in their infant stages; therefore, they just hadn't found the intermediate links yet. He was convinced that as time went on, however, geologists and paleontologists would find them. Thus, he assumed that the intermediate links were currently just “missing” from the fossil record, but they would be found in time. Critics of macroevolution quickly coined the phrase “missing link” to emphasize that the fossil record was devoid of any evidence for macroevolution.

Well, what of these missing links? Has paleontology uncovered them? The answer to that is an unequivocal no. Read, for example, the words of Dr. David Raup, the curator of the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History and an expert on the fossil record.
(block quote) Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded…ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information. (David Raup, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 50:25, 1979 – emphasis added) (block quote)

So Dr. Raup says that the missing links are still missing. Darwin saw this fact as strong evidence against macroevolution, and Dr. Raup says that the situation is worse now than ever!

Since Dr. Raup's quote is more than 20 years old, you might wonder whether paleontology has discovered anything in the past two decades to make the situation any better for macroevolution. The answer is a clear and convincing no. Consider, for example, this summary of the state of paleontology in regard to macroevolution:

(block quote) …according to Darwin...the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species. (Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins, [New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1999], 89) (block quote)

In other words, Dr. Schwartz (a macroevolutionist) is admitting that instead of finding transitional forms, paleontologists find mostly gaps. Now please understand that this flies in the face of what Darwin proposed. In fact, on the back cover of Dr. Schwartz's book, we read, “Darwin may have argued that new species emerge through a slow, gradual accumulation of tiny mutations, but the fossil record reveals a very different scenario – the sudden emergence of whole new species, with no apparent immediate ancestors.”

Now think about this for a minute. The hypothesis of macroevolution tries to explain something about earth's past. Since no one was around back then to tell us whether or not macroevolution actually happened, it is necessary to look for data that either support or contradict the hypothesis. Well, if you're looking for data about earth's history, where is the first place you would look? You would look in the fossil record! What does the fossil record say? It says that macroevolution never happened! Do you see what we mean when we say that scientists don't believe in macroevolution today because of the evidence? If the fossil record (the main place you look for information about earth's past) shows no evidence for macroevolution, scientists simply should not believe in it.

At this point, you might be thinking, “If the fossil record points so strongly against macroevolution, why do any scientists today believe in it?” Well, there are a couple of reasons. Some scientists are so committed to the idea of macroevolution that they have come up with special “variations” of macroevolution that attempt to “explain around” the fact that the fossil record does not support the idea. In fact, both Dr. Raup and Dr. Schwartz expose the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record specifically to promote one of these variations, which is called punctuated equilibrium. In this variation, it is assumed that the transitional forms that link one species to another do not live for very long. As a result, there is not much chance of them fossilizing. We will discuss this idea in more depth later in this module.

The second reason some scientists still cling to the hypothesis of macroevolution is that even though the fossil record has mostly gaps, there are some fossils that can be pointed to as possible transitional forms. Their status as transitional forms is highly questionable, but if you really need to believe in macroevolution, these fossils can give you at least some hope.

Consider, for example, the very famous fossil of a creature called Archaeopteryx (ar kee op' ter iks), which evolutionists want to believe is an intermediate link between reptiles and birds. This fossil is found in Jurassic rock, which (see Figure 9.2) contains remains of dinosaurs as well. In the geological column, Jurassic rock is underneath Cretaceous rock, which is underneath Tertiary rock. Although a few fossilized birds are found in other strata, the vast majority of bird fossils in the fossil record come from either Tertiary rock or the Quaternary rock that lies on top of it. Now remember, according to the assumptions of macroevolutionists, this would mean that birds did not really exist in significant numbers until the times during which Tertiary and Quaternary rock formed. Thus, during the times when Cretaceous and Jurassic rock were forming, macroevolutionists assume that birds had not yet evolved to any significant degree. Since Archaeopteryx is found in Jurassic rock, macroevolutionists conclude that it lived prior to most birds and that it could therefore be one of the transitional forms linking birds to their common ancestor, which is assumed to be some form of reptile.

In the vast majority of respects, this creature is a bird. The fossil shows very good imprints of feathers, and analysis of these feather imprints indicates that they are the kinds of feathers you see on birds that are living today. In fact, flightless birds that are living today have different feathers from those of birds that fly, and the fossil imprints indicate that Archaeopteryx had feathers of a flying bird.

In addition, the bones preserved in the fossil are very similar to the bones of birds that are living today. The skull, for example, shows that Archaeopteryx had a brain very similar to flying birds that are living today, and the fossilized inner ear indicates that Archaeopteryx had senses of hearing and balance that are comparable to flying birds that are living today. After performing X-ray scans of the skull and working with computer models, Dr. Timothy Rowe of the University of Texas at Austin said, “This animal had huge eyes and a huge vision region in its brain to go along with that and a great sense of balance. Its inner ear also looks very much like the ear of a modern bird.” (University of Texas at Austin Press Release, August 4, 2004, http://www.utexas.edu/cons/news/imaging.html, retrieved 01/06/05). In addition, paleontologists have been able to confirm bone structures that indicate Archaeopteryx had the same kind of lung design that birds living today have. In the end, then, Archaeopteryx seems to be a bird.

Why do many paleontologists consider Archaeopteryx a transitional form between reptile and bird? Because Archaeopteryx has teeth (which birds living today do not have), and it has claws on its wings, as shown on the illustration in the figure. No adult bird living today has claws on its wings. Some young birds (like the juvenile touraco or the juvenile hoatzin) have claws on their wings when they are young, but they lose them by the time they are adults. Some adult birds, like the ostrich, have structures on their wings that a few texts call “claws,” but they are better called “spurs,” because they do not have the actual structure of claws.

Because of these minor differences between Archaeopteryx and birds living today, macroevolutionists want to believe it is a transitional form between bird and reptile. After all, most (but not all) reptiles have teeth, and most (but not all) reptiles have front and back claws. Thus, the teeth in Archaeopteryx are supposed to represent reptilian teeth that had not quite “evolved away,” and the claws on its wings are supposed to represent front reptilian claws that had not quite blended in to the wing.

There are at least two problems with this interpretation. First, it assumes that birds living today are the only representations of proper birds. This is a rather myopic view of the natural world. We have many fossils that tell us a lot about the kinds of creatures that lived on this earth but are not living now. Are we to ignore them? If we do not ignore these creatures, we find that there were other birds that had teeth. In fact, there is a whole subclass devoted to such extinct birds, subclass Odontornithes (oh' don tor' nih theez). As a result, it is not clear that the teeth on Archaeopteryx are all that special.

The second problem with this interpretation is that it puts a lot of emphasis on rather minor structures in the animal. Based on its feathers, bone structure, lung structure, etc., Archaeopteryx seems to be a true bird. These are the main features we look at to determine whether or not something is a bird. To concentrate on two minor features, one of which exists in extinct birds, seems to be ignoring the vast majority of the data. Those who want to believe that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form will counter that we only see these structures in extinct birds, and therefore it is reasonable to assume that they were a part of the evolutionary process. However, species go extinct rather regularly, as demonstrated by the fossil record itself. The fact that all of the birds with these characteristics are now extinct is not surprising, since extinction is a major part of the fossil record.

Archaeopteryx at least illustrates how difficult it is for macroevolutionists to come up with transitional forms in the fossil record. If Archaeopteryx is a transitional form, it is a very late one. It must have been one of the very last creatures on the hypothetical macroevolutionary line between reptile and bird. Of all the transitional forms necessary to turn a reptile into a bird, it seems odd that the only one that has been found is so incredibly birdlike. Why isn't there a transitional form that is not so ambiguous?

As we said before, there are a few fossils like Archaeopteryx that macroevolutionists can present as transitional forms. The problem is, like Archaeopteryx, these supposed transitional forms are incredibly similar to one of the two types of creatures they are supposed to be linking. It seems much safer to conclude that these are just specialized versions of the creatures they are similar to, as opposed to transitional forms between two different kinds of creatures.

Another classic example of this kind of fossil is Australopithecus (aw stray' low pih' thih kus) afarensis (ah fuh' ren sis). This creature is supposed to be a transitional form between apes and humans. Although fossils of several creatures from genus Australopithecus have been discovered over the years, the best example is a partial skeleton of the A. afarensis species that has been nicknamed “Lucy.” This skeleton was discovered by Donald Johanson in 1974 near Hadar, Ethiopia. This was not the first discovery of fossils from this genus, and it was not the last. However, this skeleton is important because it is the most complete skeleton we have from this genus.

Although this might not look like a complete skeleton to you, it is actually quite a find. One of the problems with studying fossils is the fact that they tend to be very incomplete. As a result, scientists are left to speculate on the nature of a creature based often on far too little evidence. Many fossils were proclaimed intermediate links based on just a few tiny fragments of bone. Perhaps the greatest example was Nebraska Man. Scientists found a single tooth among the remains of some ancient tools. Based on that single tooth, scientists proclaimed that they had found one of the intermediate links between man and ape. They had artists draw full pictures of Nebraska Man, based only on a tooth! The pictures looked very convincing – a hulking, brutish figure that indeed looked like a link between man and ape. Later on, it was conclusively shown that the tooth actually belonged to a peccary, which is a certain type of pig! Thus, you should never believe the drawings that you see in books. Find out what fossils exist for the supposed creature. You will most likely be amazed at how few there are!

This specimen of Australopithecus afarensis, however, is quite a nice specimen, so we can learn a lot from it. When scientists examine such a specimen, they typically look at a few “key” bones that are characteristic of a certain kind of creature. For example, jaw bones are often very distinctive in most animals. Notice how the jaw bone of Australopithecus afarensis is shaped like a “V.” This is very distinctive of an ape. Also, the ratio between the size of the humerus and the size of the radius or ulna is also helpful in determining the kind of creature that Australopithecus afarensis was. Once again, the ratio of these bones indicates that Australopithecus afarensis is an ape. In fact, each bone in this entire skeleton indicates that Australopithecus afarensis is an ape.

If the bones indicate that it is an ape, why is Australopithecus afarensis considered an intermediate link? Well the hip joint and ankle joint can be constructed in such a way as to make Australopithecus afarensis stand upright in a relatively comfortable manner. This is unusual in apes. Most apes tend to be comfortable on all fours, whereas humans tend to be comfortable standing upright. Thus, because it is possible that Australopithecus afarensis might have stood upright, it is considered an intermediate link between man and ape.

There is a problem with this interpretation, however. Recent studies seem to indicate that Lucy most likely walked by using her knuckles. For example, Dr. Brian Richmond examined the wrist bones of two species in genus Australopithecus: A. afarensis and A. anamensis. They demonstrated that the wrists of these two species were quite similar to those of modern chimpanzees, which walk on both their hind legs and their knuckles. Thus, based on the wrist, you would classify Lucy as an ape that walks on its knuckles.

This is further supported by a study by Dr. Fred Spoor, who did CAT scans on the inner ears of members of genera Australopithecus and Paranthropus. Genus Paranthropus contains fossil creatures that are very similar to those in genus Australopithecus. In fact, some paleontologists think that these two genera should be combined, but that is still hotly debated. Spoor's study is important, as the inner ear is where balance is maintained, and if a creature walks upright, it needs a significantly different sense of balance from a creature that does not. What did Spoor find? His paper states, “…the semicircular canal dimensions in crania from southern Africa attributed to Australopithecus and Paranthropus resemble those of the extant great apes.” (Fred Spoor et al., “Implications of early hominid labyrinthine morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion,” Nature 369:645-8, 1994). The term “extant” just means “currently living.” Thus, Spoor's conclusion is that the inner ear of the members of genus Australopithecus is very similar to that of currently-living apes. This indicates that they probably did not walk upright, at least not habitually.

Once again, then, whether or not Australopithecus afarensis is an intermediate link depends on your point of view. If you want to believe in macroevolution, you can look at the possibility that it could stand upright and conclude that it is a transitional form. If you do not want to believe in macroevolution, you can look at the major features of the skeleton and the details of its wrists and inner ears and conclude that it is not.

The point, however, is quite clear. If macroevolution happened, the fossil record should be littered with intermediate links, as Darwin predicted. Instead, macroevolutionists can only present a few highly questionable ones. These supposed intermediate links closely resemble one of the two species they are supposed to link together. If intermediate links truly existed in the fossil record, you would think that at least one unambiguous intermediate link could be found somewhere!

Inconclusive Evidence: The Geological Column

Introduction
Part 1
Part 2

Part 3 of the Evolution series with Dr. Jay Wile and Marilyn Durnell.

Word count: 1,931
Estimated reading time: 7-12 minutes

As we said in the previous section, there is some evidence for the hypothesis of macroevolution. For example, consider some of the facts uncovered by geology. As you should have learned in a physical or general science course, geologists classify rocks as either igneous (the result of lava cooling), metamorphic (the result of rock being transformed under extreme conditions of temperature and/or pressure), or sedimentary (formed from particles of sediment). The sedimentary rock usually forms layers that are called strata.

Strata – Distinct layers of rock

In these strata, geologists find the preserved remains of once-living organisms. Those remains are called fossils.

Fossils – Preserved remains of once-living organisms

Each row in [the geological column] represents a set of layers of sedimentary rock. The rows on top are those sedimentary rocks closest to the surface, and those at the bottom are the deepest sedimentary rocks. Now please realize that the fossils listed in each of the rows are simply the ones that best characterize each layer. There are many other fossils in each set of rocks, but the ones listed in the figures are those that distinguish each set of layers from the others. When the rock layers are illustrated in this way, we say that you are looking at the geological column.

Notice the general trend in the geological column. As you go deeper in the geological column, the fossils seem to get more and more “simple.” Now we have already clearly seen that there is no such thing as a simple life form, but remember, we are talking about evidence for Darwin's hypothesis of macroevolution. Darwin and his early supporters did not have the benefit of microscopic analysis and detailed explanations of how organisms work. Thus, they did not really know that there is no such thing as a simple life form. Instead, they saw that the strata which were near the surface of the earth contained fossils of animals like horses, lions, and humans, while the deeper strata gave way to fossils of life forms like reptiles and small mammals. Even deeper, these fossils disappeared and only fossils such as fishes, squids, and trilobites remained. Darwin and his supporters thought that this progression of fossils went from “complex” organisms like human beings to “simple” organisms like squids.

Before we discuss how Darwin and his followers interpreted this geological column, we must make two important points. First, even though Figure 9.2 is a common representation of the geological column, it is not really what the geological column actually looks like! You see, 95% of all fossils that we recover are those of clams and similar organisms. There are, quite literally, fossilized clams in every region of the earth in nearly every layer of rock. So what we are showing in this representation of the geological column is really only about 5% of the fossil record. Thus, it is not a realistic representation of what the geological column actually looks like. Nevertheless, since the geological column is usually discussed in reference to macroevolution, the clams are ignored. Thus, any conclusions you make based on the geological column are, in fact, based on a tiny minority of the available data!

Second, it is very important to realize that the geological column is an idealized representation of the sedimentary rock and fossils that we see on the earth. There is really no place on the planet where you can dig and find every layer of the geological column as well as the fossils in those layers. Instead, you will find one set of fossil-bearing strata in one area of the world, and another set of fossil-bearing strata in another area of the world. These sets often contain some of the same strata, so by comparing many such sets of strata, Figure 9.2 is a representation of what the geological column might look like if you could find all of the strata and their fossils in one place. In other words, it is a theoretical construct that may or may not be accurate. It probably is a reasonable representation of the nature of the fossil record, but nevertheless, it is not pure data. That must be remembered when using it as evidence for or against any hypothesis, including that of macroevolution.

Now we can discuss how Darwin and his followers interpreted the geological column. To do that, we must discuss how the geologist Lyell (who influenced Darwin tremendously) interpreted it. Lyell said that the strata shown in the geological column were laid down sequentially over vast eons of time. Using his idea that the present is the key to the past, Lyell said that the strata seen by geologists were formed when sediments accumulated slowly over time. We see this happening today, he said, and it results in layers of sediment. Eventually, Lyell postulated, various chemical and environmental factors would take a given layer of sediment and harden it into rock. This would result in a single layer of sedimentary rock. As time went on, another layer of sediment would slowly accumulate on top of this layer of rock, eventually forming another layer of sedimentary rock on top of the previous layer. This would happen over and over again, eventually forming the layers of rock seen in the geological column.

Now, of course, all of this is speculation, but it is accepted by many geologists today as the way in which the rock strata in the geological column were formed. Well, if you accept this speculation as fact, then you are left to conclude something rather obvious. The deeper a rock layer is in the geological column, the farther back in earth's past it was formed. After all, since Lyell's process requires the lower rock layers to form before the higher ones can, the rock layers on top should be younger than the rock layers on the bottom. In fact, geologists even try to assign time frames for when these rock strata were supposed to have formed. Cambrian rock, for example, is supposed to have formed between 570 and 500 million years ago. The next set of rock layers (Ordovician rock) is supposed to have formed between 500 and 435 million years ago. Such numbers exist for every layer in the geological column. They are based on many assumptions, and it is not clear that they are accurate, but they are commonly used in reference to the geological column.

So, from the concrete scientific facts that sedimentary rock generally forms in layers and we find fossils in those layers, we develop a theoretical construct called the geological column. Then, when we add Lyell's speculation to the geological column, we are forced to conclude that the lower the strata in the geological column, the older the rock. If we further add more assumptions, we can even come up with how long ago such rock formed. If this is the case, then fossils found in strata that are low in the geological column are the remains of creatures that lived hundreds of millions of years ago. In the same way, fossils in strata near the top of the geological column must be the remains of creatures that lived in the more recent past.

Based on Lyell's speculation, then, Darwin and his followers argued that the geological column shows us that long ago, only “simple” life forms existed. That is why we see fossils of only “simple” forms in the lowest geological strata. As you look up the geological column, however, the fossils become more and more “complex.” This indicated to Darwin that as time went on, life forms got more and more complex. Well, Darwin argued, this is great evidence for macroevolution. After all, macroevolution predicts that life started out simple and, over eons of time and guided by natural selection, more complex forms of life emerged.

Now you have to realize that this conclusion is based on assumptions. You must assume that the geological column is an accurate picture of the earth's sedimentary rocks and the fossils found in them. You also have to believe that those rocks are formed as Lyell and many geologists today speculate: by the slow accumulation of sediment over eons of time. The geological column is evidence for macroevolution only if those two assumptions are right.

So the big question is, are those two assumptions right? The answer, from a scientific standpoint, is that we don't know. The geological column is probably a reasonable representation of the sedimentary rocks on earth. However, the issue of how those rock strata are formed is quite tricky. Since this is not a geology course, we do not want to spend a lot of time on the specifics. Instead, we will simply say that scientists have seen layers of sediment form slowly as a result of a process much like that suggested by Lyell. These sediment layers look a lot like “soft” versions of the sedimentary rocks we see today. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that sedimentary rocks can form that way. However, scientists have also seen that natural catastrophes like floods and volcanic eruptions can lay down many layers of rock virtually overnight. Geologists who have spent time studying the results of the eruption of Mount St. Helens in the state of Washington, for example, have documented the formation of a huge wall of sedimentary rock that has many strata in it, all in the span of about five hours.

Science tells us, then, that rock strata can be formed either slowly in a process like that suggested by Lyell or quickly as a result of natural catastrophes. So, if you want the geological column to provide evidence for macroevolution, it does. You simply have to assume that it was formed much in the way Lyell suggested that it was formed. If, on the other hand, you don't want the geological column to provide evidence for macroevolution, you can assume that it was not formed that way. Instead, you can assume that it was formed quickly as the result of one or more catastrophes. For example, we consider the major parts of the geological column to be the result of the worldwide flood that happened during Noah's time. An excellent book written by Dr. Steven Austin entitled Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe uses the specific example of the Grand Canyon to provide convincing evidence that this is, indeed, the case. Of course, those who believe that the geological column was formed according to the speculations of Lyell also have evidence of their own, so the final answer is not clear.

Since, from a scientific point of view, we really don't know whether the geological column was formed according to the speculations of Lyell or by catastrophe, the data from the geological column is inconclusive. IF the geological column was formed according to the speculations of Lyell, then it is excellent evidence for macroevolution. IF, on the other hand, it was formed by one or more catastrophes, then it is excellent evidence against macroevolution. Creation scientists, for example, believe that the worldwide flood can easily explain most of the geological column. Thus, they believe that the geological column is evidence against macroevolution because it indicates that most of the fossilized organisms lived at the same time, in direct contradiction to the evolutionary view. Evolutionists, on the other hand, think that Lyell's speculations are the best way to explain the fossil record, so they believe that the geological column is evidence for macroevolution.

Stick around for "Part 4: Details of the Fossil Record: Evidence Against Macroevolution".

Part 2: Microevolution and Macroevolution

Introduction
Part 1

To continue our study of Evolution with Dr. Jay Wile and Marilyn Durnell...

Word count: 1,709
Estimated reading time: 7-12 minutes

As we learned in Module #1, once a hypothesis is formed, it is tested against experimental data. If the data continue to support the hypothesis, it eventually becomes a theory. If it does not, it must be altered or discarded. This is the next step in the scientific method, and it is where Darwin's hypothesis ran into some trouble.

After leaving the HMS Beagle, Darwin began experimenting with pigeons. He raised and bred them, trying to see if natural selection could result in new species of pigeon. To investigate further, he talked to other animal breeders. He interviewed those who bred dogs, horses, and pigeons, looking to their experience as a guide to whether or not his hypothesis could be correct. Indeed, he found much evidence that confirmed at least part of his hypothesis. He noted several cases of breeders who, over several generations, succeeded in producing pigeons that were so different from the species with which the breeder started that they could reasonably be classified as a new species of pigeon. The same seemed to be the case with dogs and horses as well.

As another piece of evidence for his hypothesis, Darwin compared the domesticated versions of many animals with their wild counterparts. Wild dogs, for example, looked and behaved quite differently from domesticated dogs. In fact, many breeds of domesticated dog cannot reproduce with wild dogs. Thus, by the definition of species as laid out in Module #1, these domestic dogs would be considered a wholly different species from any species of wild dog. Despite these incredible differences, domestic dogs were, many generations ago, simply wild dogs that men began to train and domesticate. Over generations, however, dog breeders would selectively mate those dogs that had what the breeder considered the best traits for domestication. Thus, the “wilder” dogs were not allowed to reproduce, and the tamer dogs were. This “manmade” selection, Darwin realized, mimicked natural selection, allowing the small variations that occurred during reproduction to “pile up,” leading to a new species of dog: the domesticated dog.

With these observations, Darwin was able to do two things. First, he established as a valid scientific theory the idea that the natural variations which occur during reproduction could, when guided by natural (or manmade) selection, take one species and pile up so many changes that the result could be something reasonably classified as another species. In other words, he showed that his explanation for the many species of finches in the Galapagos archipelago was scientifically viable. Second, Darwin was able to destroy forever an idea that had been established for generations before him: the immutability of species.

The immutability of species – The idea that each individual species on the planet was specially created by God and could never fundamentally change

In other words, scientists of Darwin's day believed that every creature was created during the time of creation and has existed, essentially the same, ever since that time. In the case of dogs, for example, those who held to the idea of the immutability of the species would say that in the Garden of Eden, there were Doberman pinschers, Saint Bernards, dachshunds, and chihuahuas. Each of these breeds of dog continued, essentially unchanged, up to the present. Darwin masterfully showed that this just wasn't true. He showed that all of these breeds of dog came from some original dog ancestor, and the natural variations that occurred in reproduction, guided by natural (or manmade) selection, resulted in the many different breeds of dog that exist to this day.

Although it sounds like Darwin had remarkable success in testing his hypothesis, you need to realize that what Darwin showed to be true was only a small part of his hypothesis of evolution. The idea that one ancestral finch could, over generations, give rise to many different species of finch was revolutionary, but it was not where Darwin's idea stopped. Once he had destroyed the idea of the immutability of the species, he wanted to go much further. He wanted to show that this same process, over millions (or perhaps billions) of years, could, eventually, cause the ancestral finch to give rise to an eagle. This is where Darwin ran into all sorts of trouble when comparing his hypothesis to the data.

Although it was rather easy to show that a species of wild dog could, over time, give rise to several breeds of domestic dog, it was quite another to show that a dog could give rise to a radically different species, such as a horse or a cow! In fact, Darwin found some evidence for this idea, but it was inconclusive at best. We will be looking at this data in depth in the next section, but for right now it is enough to say that there was so much data contradicting this part of his hypothesis, that he spent the majority of his book discussing the problems with his hypothesis.

In the end, Darwin found ample evidence that starting with a basic life form (a finch, for example), many other specialized species of this life form (many species of finch) can arise as a result of variation guided by natural (or manmade) selection. However, when it came to showing that a basic life form (once again, a finch) could evolve into a completely different life form (like an eagle) by natural selection, there was precious little evidence for his hypothesis and plenty of evidence against it. This has led scientists to divide Darwin's theory of evolution into two parts: the theory of microevolution and the hypothesis of macroevolution.

Microevolution – The theory that natural selection can, over time, take an organism and transform it into a more specialized species of that organism

Macroevolution – The hypothesis that processes similar to those at work in microevolution can, over eons of time, transform an organism into a completely different kind of organism

The distinction between macroevolution and microevolution cannot be overemphasized. There is so much evidence to support the idea of microevolution that it is a well-documented scientific theory. There is so little evidence for macroevolution and so much evidence against it that it is, at best, an unconfirmed hypothesis.

Well, if Darwin could not find much evidence in support of macroevolution and found a lot of evidence against it, how did it become so popular among scientists? There are several answers to that question, but one of the most important ones is that at the time, scientists were rather ignorant about a great many things which we take for granted. As a result, Darwin could argue his point rather convincingly.

Darwin basically said that since microevolution is so clearly apparent from a scientific point of view, then macroevolution should also be rather obvious. After all, if finches can change a little over a small amount of time, shouldn't they be able to change a lot over a long period of time? Assuming that the amount of change a given species can experience is essentially limitless, it will just take a little longer for microevolution to slowly lead to macroevolution.

To scientists of Darwin's day, this sounded like a reasonable argument. You see, they didn't know what we know about genetics. They didn't know that the genetic code is responsible for determining the range of characteristics that a species has. Thus, they didn't know that the natural variation we see in reproduction today is simply the result of different alleles being expressed in different individuals. Since we know that the number of alleles in the genetic code of any species is limited, we also know that the natural variation which occurs as a part of reproduction is limited as well. Thus, unlike Darwin argued, the variation that a species can experience is not unlimited. It is limited by the number and type of alleles in the species' genetic code. Thus, today we know that macroevolution cannot occur the same way that microevolution occurs.

You see, microevolution is simple to explain. When God created the animals and plants, he built into their genetic code a great amount of variability. As these plants and animals began reproducing, this variability began manifesting itself. This built-in variation was then acted upon by natural selection to create the variations that we see within a particular kind of creature. Thus, God probably created a “typical” dog during the creation week, and then the process of microevolution produced the many variations of dog that we see today. Microevolution, then, is a testament to God's foresight. As the Creator, God knew that the creatures of His world would have to adapt in order to survive. Thus, He built in their genetic codes the ability to change, and microevolution is simply the theory that describes how that change takes place and is directed by the pressures of the environment.

Macroevolution, however, is something quite different. The hypothesis of macroevolution assumes that a given life form has an unlimited ability to change. This means that some process must exist to add information to the creature's genetic code. After all, a creature's ability to change is limited by the information in the genetic code. There are only a certain number of genes and alleles of those genes. There is therefore only a certain number of possible variations in genotype and therefore a limited number of possible phenotypes. Thus, in order to get an unlimited amount of change, a creature must somehow find a way to add genes and alleles to its genetic code! This is something altogether different from microevolution and, as we will see in the next few sections, there is precious little data supporting such a hypothesis and quite a lot of data contradicting it.

In the end, then, we can distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution by referring to genetics. If we are talking about a species varying within its genetic code, we are talking about microevolution. This is how wild dogs became domestic dogs and how the many varieties of finch formed in the Galapagos archipelago. On the other hand, if we are talking about a species suddenly adding information to its genetic code, we are talking about macroevolution. The distinction is quite important, because the former is a well-established scientific theory while the latter is an unconfirmed hypothesis.

Look for Part 3, "Inconclusive Evidence: the Geological Column", tomorrow.

Part 1: Darwin's Theory

Let's continue with the series on Evolution by Dr. Jay Wile and Marilyn Durnell...

Word count: 1,459
Estimated reading time: 5-10 minutes

During his time on the HMS Beagle, Darwin had a chance to investigate a small chain of islands called the Galapagos. The thirteen islands of the archipelago are the result of volcanic activity, and these islands still exist about 600 miles west of the South American nation of Ecuador (on the equator). Although Darwin was pleased to study a wide variety of plant and animal life on these islands, he concentrated on the finches that lived there. Many science historians credit these birds, now known as “Darwin's finches,” as inspiring Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection.

You see, there were (and still are) many different species of finches living in the Galapagos. These species have several common characteristics, but there are specific differences between each species that were of great interest to Darwin.

Certhidea olivacea has a small, slender beak, while Geospiza difficilis has a larger, stouter beak, and G. magnirostris has the largest, stoutest beak of the three. Why do these finches have such different beaks? Well, let's look at what they eat. C. olivacea eats tiny insects. G. difficilis eats eggs that it steals from nests, but it does not use its beak to break them. Instead, it grabs onto something with its beak and then kicks the eggs into a rock. Finally, G. magnirostris eats hard seeds that it must crack with its beak. Each finch seems to have just the right beak for its food source: a small, slender beak for the finch that eats soft insects; a larger, sturdier beak for the one that uses it as an anchor; and the largest, sturdiest beak for the one that uses it to crack hard seeds.

Differences like these fascinated Darwin. You see, the scientists of Darwin's day would have looked at each of these species and assumed that God had designed each one individually and gave each one exactly the beak that it needed to eat the food it was supposed to eat. Darwin, however, imagined something else. He said that other than the beak and a few other differences (size and plumage color, for example), these finches were all remarkably similar. Since they were all so similar, he imagined that they all came from a common ancestor long ago. As the feeding needs of the finches changed, however, this common ancestor began to give rise to many different species of finch, each with a unique beak.

How did Darwin propose that this could happen? Well, he said, look at what happens when any species reproduces. When two people have a baby, for example, the baby has many characteristics in common with his parents. The baby's eye color might be the same as his mother's, and his hair color might be the same as his father's. Nevertheless, the baby usually has some characteristics that do not seem to come from either parent. Some tall professional basketball players, for example, have short parents. Thus, although offspring do tend to resemble their parents, they also have a few characteristics that are quite different from the corresponding characteristics in their parents. It is these differences, Darwin thought, which could be responsible for all of the finches in the Galapagos.

Suppose that long ago, there was only one species of finch living on the islands. If food supplies were to grow scarce, the finches that made up the population of this species would compete with one another for the dwindling food supplies, just as Malthus predicted. When this competition began occurring, any finch that had an advantage would be more likely to win the competition than one who didn't. Thus, suppose a finch was born that had a beak which was stronger than the typical finch. Well, that finch might be able to find a new source of food (hard nuts that other finches couldn't break open, for example). With this new source of food, this strong-beaked finch would most likely win the competition for survival. As it reproduced, then, it would most likely pass on this new, strong beak to at least some of its offspring. Over many, many generations, each time one of these finches was born with an even stronger beak, it would be more likely to survive, because it could continue to find more food than the finches with which it was competing. This competition, combined with the natural differences that arise between parent and offspring, could, over generations, produce a finch whose beak was short and stout, like that of G. magnirostris, even if the original species of finch had a small, slender beak, like that of C. olivacea.

During that same time (or perhaps later), another finch might have been born whose beak was short and stout, but not short and stout enough to break open new seeds. However, perhaps it was short and stout enough to act as an anchor while the finch broke open eggs with its feet. This would make it easier for that finch to get to the nutrition inside of eggs, giving it an edge in the competition to survive. As time went on, this finch would survive and would pass on its basic beak shape to its offspring. Each time a finch was born whose beak was more ideally suited for the task of anchoring the bird while it broke open eggs, the finch would have a better edge in the competition for survival, making it more likely to live and pass its new characteristic on to more and more offspring. Thus, as time went on, the original finch species that lived in the Galapagos and had a beak ideal for eating insects would eventually give rise to two new species of finch: one with a beak ideal for grasping onto objects and another with a beak that was ideal for breaking open hard seeds.

This is the mechanism by which Darwin imagined that all species of finch he observed could have originated from a single type of finch long ago. He called this mechanism “natural selection,” because he said that due to the fierce competition which occurred between members of a species, any individual that had a unique characteristic making it more likely to win the competition would be selected by nature to survive. As time went on, these unique characteristics would continue to “pile up” on one another until eventually, a new species was formed.

Darwin, of course, did not stop there. After all, he imagined, if such a mechanism could be responsible for causing finches to develop new beaks, why couldn't that same mechanism allow them to develop longer, stronger wings, longer, sharper talons, and keener eyesight? If that was so, finches could eventually give rise to eagles! These ideas led Darwin to his overall theory of evolution. At one time, Darwin believed, there was a relatively simple (most likely aquatic) life form that existed on earth. Darwin made no speculations about how that life form developed, but others who followed have constructed wild scenarios that try to explain the formation of this organism without the intervention of a supernatural creator. This life form, Darwin assumed, would begin to reproduce and, as is the case today, variations would occur in the reproduction. These variations, guided by the process of natural selection, would eventually “pile up” so as to form new species. These species would, in the same way, give rise to other species. Thus, over eons of time, Darwin believed that this mechanism could explain the existence of all life forms on the planet.

Hopefully you can see how Malthus and Lyell influenced Darwin's thinking. After all, Malthus gave Darwin the idea that individuals within a species compete with one another in order to survive. This led to Darwin's idea of natural selection. Lyell's concept that the present is the key to the past allowed Darwin to speculate that the same variations which we see in reproduction today could, over vast ages of time, be responsible for all of the variations among all of the species that exist on the planet. In other words, Darwin did not dream up this theory on his own. He was influenced by the works of others.

If you remember our discussion of the scientific method, you will recognize that at this point in the story, Darwin's idea was really no more than a hypothesis. Darwin made a bunch of observations and then proceeded to develop an explanation for those observations. Did the concept of evolution through natural selection ever make it past the stage of being a hypothesis? Well, the answer to that is both yes and no. Hopefully you will see what we mean in the next section.

Restrictions on comments state at the end of the introductory post still apply, but comments are ALWAYS welcome!

Introduction: Charles Darwin

The following was taken directly from Exploring Creation With Biology by Dr. Jay Wile and Marilyn Durnell.

Word Count: 1,693
Estimated minutes to read: 5-10

Because he is such an important figure in the field of biology, it is necessary to look at the life of Charles Darwin in some detail. This will help us gain insight to how he developed his theory, and, hopefully, you might learn a lesson or two from his story.

Charles Robert Dawrin was born in the village of Strewsbury, England on February 12, 1809. Charles Darwin On that same day, far away, Abraham Lincoln was born in Kentucky. Darwin was born into a relatively wealthy family where education and artistic enrichment were stressed. In 1825, he enrolled at the University of Edinburgh, where all the men in his family had been educated. His father wanted him to study medicine, but he was sickened at the first sight of surgery being performed without anesthesia. He also showed little aptitude for the subject, so after two years, he abandoned the study of medicine.

When he left the study of medicine, he transferred to Christ's College in Cambridge, England, to study theology. Contrary to what you might have heard about Darwin, he seemed to be a deeply committed Christian at this point in his life. During this part of his life, he said that he did not “…in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word of the Bible” (Julian Huxley and H.B.D. Kettlewell, Charles Darwin And His World, [New York,NY: Viking Press, 1965], 15). Since he considered himself a devout Christian, the study of theology came quite naturally to him, and he graduated with a B.A. in theology, Euclid, and the classics.

Although his degree was in theology, Euclid, and the classics, Darwin developed a keen interest in geology while at Cambridge. Thus, when he had the opportunity to accompany a Cambridge professor, Adam Sedgewick, on a geology field trip in the summer of 1831, he jumped at the chance. While on that field trip, he was offered the position of naturalist on the HMS Beagle, a ship that planned to circumnavigate the globe. Although you might think it unusual for a ship to employ a naturalist, nearly every ship had such a position available. Darwin eagerly accepted the assignment, and that voyage changed both Darwin's life and the face of science forever.

Before that voyage, Darwin had read a book written by Thomas Malthus entitled An Essay on the Principles of Population. In this book, Malthus said that all individuals within a population struggle against other individuals to obtain what is necessary (food, shelter, a mate, etc.) in order to survive and reproduce. While on board the HMS Beagle, Darwin also read some of the works of a controversial geologist named Sir Charles Lyell. Lyell was one of the first scientists who rejected the history of the world as told in the Old Testament and tried to show that the same processes we see at work today could, given eons and eons of time, produce all of the geological features in the world. Geologists often summarize Lyell's idea with the catch phrase “The present is the key to the past.”

Darwin voyaged on the HMS Beagle for five years; during that time, he made many observations. Each time the ship dropped anchor, Darwin collected samples and made observations of the species native to whatever island or land mass he was on. These observations, some of which we will detail later, combined with the ideas of Malthus and Lyell, led Darwin to formulate his theory, which he called “natural selection.” Although his theory was completely formulated by the time he left the HMS Beagle, he did not publish his book for another 23 years. Part of the delay was due to Darwin trying to perfect his work, but most of it was due to his wife, who recognized the devastating effect that his work could have on the church. She pleaded with him not to publish, and he respected her wishes for some time, but in the end, he felt that he had to communicate his ideas to the scientific world. He therefore published The Origin of Species in 1859.

It is important to note that Darwin was a careful, meticulous scientist. He was not the anti-religion crusader that many have made him out to be. If you actually read his work, you will find that it is quite evenhanded. Indeed, Darwin devoted more space to discussing the reasons a scientist might not want to accept his main hypothesis than he did to the discussion of why a scientist should accept it! You will not find that kind of evenhandedness in the majority of scientific writing that occurs today. Indeed, modern scientists (especially evolutionary crusaders) could learn a lot from Darwin's style. Darwin's only real mistake was to allow his faith to erode as a result of the science he pursued on the HMS Beagle.

The best illustration of how Darwin's faith eroded while on the HMS Beagle and the years after can be found by comparing two statements he made. During the earliest part of his voyage, he wrote in his diary that he often bore the brunt of a good deal of laughter “…from several of the officers for quoting the Bible as final authority on some moral point” (Bern Dibner, Darwin of the Beagle, [Cambridge, MA: Burndy Library, 1964], 82). Only a few years after his voyage, however, he stated "...that the Old Testament from its manifest false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos [sic], or the beliefs of any barbarian” (Dibner, pp. 82-83). Clearly these are the statements of a man whose faith at first seemed strong but then eroded over time to nothing!

Charles Darwin died in 1882 as the result of a long illness. He died a celebrated naturalist whose views were said to usher in a new age of science. He was buried in Westminster Abbey along with such scientific greats as Sir Isaac Newton and Sir William Thomson Kelvin. There is a myth going around the Christian community that Darwin recanted his theory on his deathbed. This is a lie, and historians think that it was started by the widow of Sir James Hope, fleet admiral for the Royal Navy. She claims to have visited Darwin shortly before his death and to have heard him recant his theory and ask to be told how he might be saved. Darwin's own daughter Henrietta, however, said, “…[the admiral's widow] was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her....” In addition, she states that “He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier…The whole story has no foundation whatever” (Paul F. Boller and John George, They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, & Misleading Attributions, [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989], 19-20). Although the story of a deathbed recantation by Darwin is appealing to Christians, it is almost certainly a lie and therefore such a story does not, in any way, honor God.

Although this biography was rather long and involved, it was necessary for four reasons. First, it is important that the phony story of Darwin's deathbed recantation not be spread any further. Second, it is important for you to realize that although Darwin's theory has had devastating effects on the faith of many people, Darwin himself was not an antireligion crusader like many evolutionists are today. Darwin was a careful, dedicated scientist who started his career speaking like a Bible-believing Christian. There is not a shred of evidence that he had any intentions of harming the church. He was merely communicating what he thought were the obvious conclusions of science. Third, it shows that even careful use of the scientific method can result in the wrong conclusion. Despite the fact that Darwin did everything right in terms of the science that he did, we can show that although a portion of his theory is valid, the major conclusion is not. Thus, proper use of the scientific method does not guarantee a correct answer!

Finally, a look at Darwin's life can show you how horrible the results are when you put your faith in science. As we stated in Module #1, science is limited and is constantly changing. What we thought were scientific laws less than a century ago are now known to be wrong. Indeed, as you will see in the rest of this module, we now know that most of Darwin's ideas were very wrong. You simply cannot put your faith in something as limited and subject to change as science. Had Darwin realized that, he would not have allowed his faith in the Bible to be eroded, and he might never have championed this errant theory that has had such a devastating effect on the faith of others!

This is the introduction to a ten part series on viewing Evolution through good science.

Because of "issues" in the past, I would like to set some parameters for commenting:

1. No insulting. At all. NONE. Comments doing so will be deleted completely. Watch it.
A. No degrading examples (Einar), and no patronizing tone barely hidden within every sentence (Alex).
B. No attacking people's intelligence or lack of open-mindedness. This debate is not about how ignorant you think your opponent is, it's about the cold hard facts of science.
C. Being insulted by someone's belief does not count as an insult as long as the belief is expressed with civility.

2. If you are going to counter anything being said, please back up your argument with evidence. Posting links is not necessary, but do cite your source, please.

3. If you are asked to give further information, please do so when asked the first time, just out of courtesy.

4. If you think I am being a bossy, controlling, overbearing snot, that is perfectly fine. It will not be the first time someone has thought that. However, the rules still apply ;)

5. Go for it.

Cultural Honor

So, I’m reading this book called Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. It’s kind of a strange book in that it doesn’t really help you do anything exactly, it just sort of helps you understand things. Basically, it examines some successful people, and tries to figure out exactly what it is that makes them that way. There are some really interesting parts, and some parts that I sort of skimmed. But my favorite part so far was this:

Cultural honor.

Stick with me, please, because I found this to be profoundly eye-opening.

You’ve heard about family feuds and stuff, right? How for generations and generations, families will just fight with each other for reasons they might not even remember?

Well, as Malcolm Gladwell points out, one family doing this is a feud. A ton of families right along the Appalachian doing it is a pattern.

What in the world makes those people so prone to violent out breaks with each other? Did you guess it? Cultural honor. Because the main profession of the mountain areas was livestock and stuff, people honor was very important. I mean, if you were a farmer, you had to rely on other people and get along with your neighbors, but there was never a danger of having your crop actually stolen. When your job was tending sheep or something, people very well could steal your hard work, and it wasn’t necessary to get along with the people around you really.

All you had to protect your livestock and your family was your reputation. Build up your reputation as a tough guy and no one will mess with you. Keep your honor intact.

There are other reasons why culture honor was (and is) such a big thing in those parts. It has to do with heritage.

Back when people were still coming regularly to America, a certain group of people settled in a certain spot: the Scotch-Irish immigrants settled along the eastern/southern US.

That would be “from the Pennsylvania border south and west through Virginia and West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina, and the northern end of Alabama and Georgia.” And that’s where all this “cultural honor” stuff is big. You can steal my stuff, but you can’t insult my mama. That’s how it works here. *clears throat* I mean, there…

Okay, I’m from North Carolina. And when Mr. Malcolm Gladwell started raggin’ on my homeland, I started getting pretty hot inside.

And as I started boiling, I blinked and realized I was proving his point.

Oh.

…

I read on. There was then an experiment described. In the early 1990s, two psychologists decided to get together a bunch of 18-21 year old guys and insult them, see how they would react. They came up with the insult they thought would resonate with them the most. “A—hole.” (I am quoting the book, sorry.)

Here was the experiment set up:

“The social sciences building at the University of Michigan has a long, narrow hallway in the basement lined with filing cabinets. The young men were called into a classroom, one by one and asked to fill out a questionnaire. Then they were told to drop off the questionnaire at the end of the hallway and return to the classroom.”

Half the guys were from the states that were high on cultural honor, half of them were not.

“As they walked down the hallway with their questionnaire, a man—a confederate of the experiments—walked past them and pulled out a drawing in one of the filing cabinets. They already narrow hallway now became even narrower. As the young men tried to squeeze by, the confederate looked up, annoyed. He slammed the filing cabinet drawer shut, jostled the young men with his shoulder, and, in a low but audible voice said the trigger word: ‘a—hole.’”

Through different tests that I go into in too much detail, the suspicions were confirmed. Confirmed A LOT. The cultural honor boys were mad. Even though they didn’t act out in violence, their handshakes were firmer than usual, saliva samples revealed that being insulted had raised their levels of testosterone and cortisol (hormones that drive aggression). The guys were also given a short story and told to supply a conclusion. The story had to do with a guy’s girlfriend being come onto by another guy. The cultural honor guys who had been insulted made it end violently, while the guys who lived in other places did not.

IS THAT INTERESTING TO ANYONE ELSE?

I’m going to be perfectly honest with you:

I never thought people reacted any differently.

Call me ignorant, but I thought this was the same everywhere. I had no idea that in other parts of the US, it wouldn’t be natural to react violently to having your honor insulted. I mean, you just don’t do that here. No one gets upset if you steal their stuff, but if you attack their honor, boy, it’s on.

It’s not just guys, it’s girls, too. I mean, I honestly had no idea that it would occur to anyone not to get wild about something like this…I think I’ve already said that :) But you get the idea.

Who knew? I had no idea that culture honor wasn’t the same everywhere. What a cool eye-opener!

Hope you guys found this at least half as interesting as I did :)