108
APPENDIX B
BIOLOGICAL NATURAL
HISTORY: CREATION VS. EVOLUTION
Natural history is man’s attempt at telling the story
of natural development over time. It is one of the tasks dominion man seeks to
do. As a dominion work it depends upon the limitations of man’s reason and
experience--subjects discussed in Chapter Three. I pointed out there that
reason is a limited tool. It can supply logical rigor to our thinking, but such
rigor can show us reality only if our categories and logical rules fit reality.
I also pointed out in Chapter Three that our
experience as finite creatures is very limited. We
cannot extend our experience backwards in time beyond human observations except
by speculation and conjecture.
All attempts, therefore, at writing natural histories
must cope with man’s limited reason and experience in space and time. Either
God’s revelation of the origin and destiny of nature is accepted as reasonable
and as empirically-observed data, or it is not. Presuppositionally, a decision
has to be made: which will be the final reference point--the Word of God or the
thoughts of man?
In the biological realm the battle between biblical
faith and paganism is wrapped up in the creation-evolution controversy. This
appendix discusses the deep structural difference between creationist and
evolutionary views of natural history. From this vantage point, I discuss why
evolutionists can debate conflicting theories of evolution while insisting upon
the fact of evolution with such minimal evidence of its occurrence. I conclude
with a brief survey of the evidence supporting biblical creation.
STRUCTURAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CREATION AND EVOLUTION.
The idea of evolution did not begin with Darwin. In Chapter
One I pointed out that it derives from the ancient pagan doctrine of the Chain
of Being. Paganism always idolizes the creation as a substitute for the
Creator. Ancient paganism conceived of origins by a process of procreation and
transmutation. Nature is invested with the divine attributes of eternality and
omnipotence. Form derives from chaos, information from non-information, mind
from non-mind, and life from non-life. Nature spontaneously organizes itself.
Neither the Creator-creature nor the man-nature distinctions are accepted.
The structure of the evolutionary idea thus differs
remarkably from that of creation. Within creationism the doctrines of God, man,
and nature developed in the previous chapters clearly establish inviolable
categories. There is a two-level view of being, not a single-level one, with
the creature derivative of the Creator. Unity and diversity are equally
ultimate, present at the Creator level in the Trinity and.109 present at the creature level in the similarities and
diversities. Information, language, and thought are present at the Creator
level in omniscience and present at the creature level in man’s mind. Life is
created from non-life by the Creator’s Word.
In the biological realm, creationism asserts the
inviolable nature of the created “kinds”. These groupings of life forms are
zealously guarded throughout the Bible. As mighty as the creation’s procreative
power is, it cannot override these barriers. Not only homosexual transgression
of the gender difference was opposed (Lev. 18:22) but beastiality was
specifically penalized (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 18:23; 20:15-16). Sexual aberrations
such as these are more than simple lust-patterns;
they are expressions of paganism’s hostility to the
God of the created categories. Based upon creationism’s protection of the
kinds, the Bible expounds salvation in creationist terms. Salvation is not
gradual transmutation through good works but sudden recreation through
regeneration and
resurrection.
Of course as a pagan vanity, the evolutionary view
suffers from the same fatal weakness that all paganism suffers; it fails to
justify itself. Evolution holds that the human mind that has conceived the idea
of evolution is merely a phenomenon of homo sapiens’ brain cell activity. If
human brain cell activity alone produces ideas like evolution, then how do we
know such ideas fit reality (maybe they’re nothing more than hallucinations)?
How can the evolutionary idea of the mind justify construction of universal
statements such as “all reality is evolving”?
The usual answer by evolutionists is that we observe
in our [limited] experience that evolution is true, whether we can explain the
mind or not. That evolution has occurred is a fact; how it happened is a matter
of scientific inquiry. This ploy raises the issue of what part, if any, of the
evolutionary idea is fact?
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION AND THE SO-CALLED FACT OF
EVOLUTION.
Evolutionary biologists can debate vigorously among
themselves alternate theories to account for the so-called fact of evolution.
None of those biologists, however, can question the fact of evolution itself
and retain their credentials in their profession. By “fact” they mean that all
life forms have derived by procreation and transmutation from an original
primitive life form. All life is ultimately a continuum. Observed differences
and diversities are superficial.[1] But is this continuum really such an
undebatable fact? It can be defended only by using some sort of argument like
this:
(1) common features are observed in all life forms
(e.g., cell and genetic structures); (2) other features are common to subsets.110 of life forms (e.g., skeletal patterns); (3) such
common features show a common code or genetic information shared universally or
in sub-groupings; (4) the various sub-groups of life forms can be classified on
a scale of ascending complexity; (5) codes and genetic information can only be
carried from one life form to another by procreation with differences
accountable by transmutation; and (6) therefore all life forms are related by
procreation.
A little-recognized fallacy lies hidden in statement
(5). Statement (5) is a tautology because it asserts what it is trying to
prove, viz., that procreation and transmutation alone can account for all
similarity relationships. Why is that obvious? Why is common design by a common
Creator excluded from consideration here? Statement (5) is tautologous because
it philosophically excludes any other explanation.
Thus the so-called “fact” of evolution upon closer
inspection is not a fact in any observable sense. It is a
philosophically-informed interpretation of classification. That life forms can
be classified on a scale of ascending complexity is an observable fact. That
this classification could only have resulted by procreation and transmutation
is not an observable fact. This last claim is a speculative deduction.
So we return to the previous question: how does
evolution justify itself? If it is not really a “fact” in the normal sense of
the word, how can the human idea of evolution be trusted? On the evolutionary
basis human thought is nothing more than brain-cell activity. Why should such
electro-chemical activity yield reliable universal concepts about all reality?
At the very basic starting point, evolutionary theory fails to provide itself
with a foundation. What, then, are the evidences of natural biological history?
Much literature has become available in the last twenty
years reporting on the accumulating body of evidences to support biblical
creation. Here is a brief survey of the important categories of such
evidence.[2]
1. Design and Information Theory. For many years Bible-believing Christians have
insisted that there is order in nature--designs that point to the Creator’s
wisdom. That life forms can be classified is a fact that is interpreted by
creationism as evidence of a common Creator, not evidence of common descent.
Such highly-ordered structures as the cell and its constituents reveal a design
imposed upon nature by Intelligent Omniscience from outside nature.
Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith has noted that such design
cannot come from matter spontaneously. While random processes can.111 produce limited structures by chance, they cannot
produce genuine information such as that which codes biological life-forms.
Using an analogy to a book, Wilder-Smith shows that the natural laws of paper
and ink do not produce meaningful print. Meaningful words are created with paper
and ink by an “outside” mind that structures them. The result is a message in a
book that is understandable to another mind sharing the same language. The idea
communicated from the author’s mind and to the reader’s mind is distinct from
the paper and ink components of the book.
Biochemical genetic structures function similarly to a
printed page. There is a plan or design communicated from one cell to another
that is distinct from the DNA molecular structure. Such a plan no more arose
from the DNA than a book’s story arose from paper and ink. Wilder-Smith notes
that this distinction between an intelligent message or design and its physical
carrier is precisely what evolutionary scientists today use in trying to
discern signs of extra-terrestrial life in radio-noise coming to the earth. He
writes:
“It would be interesting to suggest to practitioners
of ETI [Extra-terrestrial Intelligence] research the following experiment:
instead of listening to their radio telescopes searching for non-random
sequences issuing from the far galaxies as an index of ETI, they might take a
look into a suitable mount on an electron microscope focused onto suitably
prepared genetic code sequences. . . .When the ETI expert has thus convinced
himself that the genetic code shows non-random sequencing governed by a
language convention determining a synthetic organic chemical message, what must
he conclude? [3]
Of course the creationist knows very well the source
of the genetic code’s message: the spoken word of God that created the various
kinds of life forms.
2. Artificial and Natural Selection. Darwin saw what carefully-guided artificial
selection (breeding) accomplished in changing life-forms. He then extrapolated
the concept to account for unlimited change in life-forms. Given enough time,
he argued, small changes induced by naturally random events could account for
vast changes. Actually what all selection shows is that the Genesis kinds exist
and remain stable. A selective process cannot create; it can only select from
among a set of choices that already exist. Breeders intelligently guide the
selection process artificially in order to produce biological traits they want.
Such traits already exist in the genetic material. Natural selection, operating
randomly and unintelligently, also selects pre-existing
traits. In the end of both processes, the broad
categories of life-forms remain intact. The created kinds with all their
potential traits continue since the day of creation.
Such adaptation can be called “micro-evolution”. It is
an ability that God built into His creatures to adapt to changing environments.
After the flood, for example, plants and animals had to adapt to the new world
and do so fairly rapidly. This limited change, however, cannot be cited as
“proof” of large-scale, macroevolution.
3. Mutation Effects and the Fall. Evolutionists have tried to use the process of
random mutations to create new things. The trouble here is threefold. First,
most mutations are bad. They resemble mistakes in a computer program: small
disruptions fatally end the program. Over any lengthy time period, the bad
mutations would overpower any good mutations. Second, if such mutations are too
small in their effect, they don’t help. What good is 10% of an eye? The
supposed
evolutionary advantages wouldn’t begin to occur until
a wholly functioning entity were completed. Third, if such mutations are
required to be too large, they can’t be produced by random chance processes.
How likely would it be for a complete 100-line computer program to arise by
auto-organization without a pre-existing program?
Mutations must be seen in the light of the fall.
Nature has become abnormal in the biblical view. Structures wear out and fall
apart. Far from being a creative process, mutational activity is most likely a
destructive after-effect of the fall.
4. Systematic Gaps in the Fossil Record. Natural history writing must rely on either human
observations of the past, God’s observations of the past, or mute records in
nature. The pagan mind quickly eliminates God as a data source so it builds
exclusionary rules against the biblical narrative and its remnants in tribal
memories. Then, because paganism infers descent from classification, the
evolutionary worldview cannot conceive mankind existing back when lower
life-forms were evolving. Thus human observations are thought to be irrelevant
to the question. What is left is the fossil evidence buried in the earth.
Surely, if the evolutionary idea of the Continuity of
Being is correct, there ought to be clear evidence of simpler forms of life
transitioning into more complex forms. But what is shown by the fossil
evidence? The fossil record shows very little change in the various kinds of
plants and animals. Entire groups “suddenly” appear with no transitional forms
from simpler groups. The variations that do appear seem to occur within major
groups.
Some so-called transitional forms are claimed such as
Archaeopteryx being a transition from reptile to bird and various “ape-men”.
The problem with such examples is that only bone structure is available and
often not much of that. So systematic are the gaps in the fossil record between
major kinds that evolutionists themselves have argued that evolution occurred
in.113 “spurts”. It did nothing for millions of years and then
suddenly some catastrophe or other caused a rapid quantum-jump in evolutionary
progress. These jumps were too rapid for the fossil record to capture. Thus the
fossil record does not confirm evolution as Darwin himself had hoped. From the
biblical viewpoint, the fossil record is obviously a post-fall product. Death
came through Adam’s fall. Fossils, therefore, derive from events happening
after creation. The prime candidate for a cause of fossil-bearing rock is the
flood.
Other events also may have contributed. That involves
geological natural history, a topic I discuss in Appendix D. To write a natural
history is extremely difficult. But for the pagan who at the very starting
point excludes all data available from God’s Word, the task is hopeless. Biological
history necessarily deals with instantaneous creation by divine fiat, effects
of the fall, effects of the flood, and mechanisms of adaptation designed into
plants and animals. The full story has never been told within a biblical
worldview. And because creationists have been cut off from necessary research
funding, it is not likely to be told in the foreseeable future.
In the meantime, however, discoveries and research
that have been done support the biblical position quite well. The concept of separate
kinds has survived all breeding experiments and fossil digs. New discoveries of
genetic structures show far more of God’s design than ever was known before.
1. A crucial discussion of all of the philosophical
background involved is Mortimer J. Adler, The Difference of Man and the
Difference It Makes (Chicago: World Publishing Co., 1967). Another work on the
history of pagan though prior to Darwin is Henry Morris, The Long War Against
God (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989).
2. Readers are urged to consult Bible-believing
sources of materials such as the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego,
California and the Creation Research Society. New materials are coming out all
the time. In this appendix I can only outline the general topic. Also keep in
mind the presuppositional nature of all argument which is explained in Part I
of this series.
3. A. E. Wilder-Smith, The Scientific Alternative to
Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory (Costa Mesa, CA: The Word for Today Publishers,
1987), p. 122.