Polls indicate that a large portion of the public rejects Evolution.[1] In contrast, The National Academy of Sciences has stated that there is an overwhelming consensus of scientists who support Evolution.[2] However, over 700 PhD level scientists with impressive academic credentials have signed a petition headed by this statement:
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.[3]
This book uses a very simple definition for Evolution that includes the following two steps:
- A simple life form arose by random chemical reactions on the early earth.
- All current life forms are linked to this common ancestor through a long series of genetic mutations (copying errors during replication).
These two sentences reflect the common understanding of what the Theory of Evolution implies. Some slight variants of this wording are used in this book, but the meaning remains essentially the same.
This book uses a very simple definition for Fact:
- A claim supported by unambiguous evidence that makes it indisputable.
This is similar in meaning to the definition for a Scientific Fact given in Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences:
- • [A Scientific Fact is an] observation that has been repeatedly confirmed.[4]
Chapter 3 of this book discusses the various meanings of the words Fact, Theory and Evolution. In order to have an honest debate about the Fact of Evolution it is absolutely necessary to have a clear definition for these words.
It is obvious to everybody that living organisms are very complex. In an attempt to explain how life forms arose without invoking a supernatural Creator, Darwin suggested that biological complexity developed step-by-step over a long interval of time.
Furthermore, Darwin Darwin
But Darwin
It was not Darwin, but the Catholic monk Gregor Mendel who helped figure out the laws governing genetic inheritance. Mendel’s famous pea-breading experiments have led to him being called the “Father of Modern Genetics.”[7]
At first, Mendel’s work was rejected because many scientists of that day believed in “blending inheritance” – the theory that an offspring received an average of his parent’s traits.[8] But by the early 20th century, Mendel’s work was rediscovered.
In the timeframe leading up to 1950, Mendel’s theory of inheritance became widely accepted. This led scientists to combine Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection with Mendel’s theory of genetics to create the “Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.”[9]
The “Modern Evolutionary Synthesis” is commonly referred to as Neo-Darwinism.[10] In the popular culture, it is often described by a single word – Evolution. According to Evolution, the imperfect replication of DNA (the chemical substance that carries genetic information) ties all modern species to an ancient common ancestor.
The errors in DNA replication are known as genetic mutations.[11] The alleged ability of Evolution to create complex life forms is based on the concept that the Natural Selection suggested by Darwin will spread genetic mutations that increase survival chances throughout a species.[12]
The single word Evolution has both narrow and broad meanings. The narrow meaning is that the genetic composition of species changes over time. The broad meaning is that a set of genetic changes connects all current species to a common ancestor (often called common descent).[13]
Science is about a search for truth. This quest for truth led to the development of the traditional scientific method.[14] A major principle behind the scientific method is that experiments are done to test conjectures about why things work the way they do.
Experimental evidence is important to science because repeatable experimental results are highly trustworthy. It is non-controversial to grant the results of repeatable experiments the authority of a scientific fact.
Theories tend to be very broad in nature. They contain unproven conjectures that have much less certainty than the low-level scientific facts supported by direct experimental evidence. A perfect example of a theory would be the broad claim of common descent by an evolutionary process.
Common descent is alleged to happen over a very long timeframe. Hence, common descent can have no direct form of observation. Therefore, it is not subject to an experiment that can be repeatedly observed and confirmed.
Nevertheless, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences classifies Evolution as a scientific fact, rather than a scientific theory.[15] I believe this classification violates the NAS’s own definition for a scientific fact, which requires repeated confirmation.
Because common descent from an ancient ancestor involves a process that can’t be observed, it obviously can’t be repeatedly confirmed. Thus, classifying Evolution as a scientific fact lowers the standard of authority for all scientific facts. This is evident by the NAS’s own definition for a scientific fact, which states that,
… a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.[16]
The NAS definition implies scientific facts have no absolute certainty. However, the word theory already has a clear connotation of potential uncertainty associated with it. Therefore, there is no need to accommodate the uncertainty surrounding the Fact of Evolution by implying that all scientific facts lack certainty.
Some Evolutionists claim that they are “sick and tired of hearing” that “evolution is just a theory.”[17] They like to compare the certainty of Evolution to the certainty of gravity.[18] But the kind of gravity that most people are certain of is a force, rather than a theory. Anybody who jumps up and comes down confirms the force of gravity.
But does the broad meaning of Evolution (common descent) have the same certainty as the force of gravity, which nobody doubts? Or does it have the same certainty as the hypothetical graviton particle, which is considered to be the theoretical cause for gravity, even though nobody has ever seen a graviton?[19]
Evolutionists can point to genetic changes having been observed in the laboratory – for example with fruit flies.[20] But small changes in the fruit fly species do not prove that all life forms share a common ancestor any more than jumping up and down demonstrates the existence of the graviton.
The simple fact is that nobody has ever observed a fruit fly changing into anything but a modified fruit fly. Nor has anybody observed any of the other alleged Evolutionary transitions between species – such as a single-celled organism evolving into a multi-celled organism, or a water-dwelling fish evolving into a land-dwelling animal.
Evolution is often presented as being vitally important to science. For example, this quote from Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene emphasizes how important he considers Evolution to be:
If superior creatures from space ever visit the earth, the first question they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilization, is: ‘Have they discovered evolution yet?’[21]
In the 150 years since Darwin Darwin
For example, huge skyscrapers, bridges, and dams have been built. Airplanes now fill the skies. Men have landed on the moon. Telephones, radios, televisions, and computers have become ubiquitous. None of this progress has any connection at all to Evolution.
Perhaps it is the field of medicine where Evolution has its greatest impact. But modern medical advancements – heart transplants, neurosurgery, and the development of artificial limbs also do not depend on Evolution.
According to a popular McGraw Hill textbook on Human Physiology, “physiology is the study of how cells, tissues, and organs function.” [23] If Evolution were vitally important to understanding how living organisms function, it should certainly be a major part of every textbook on human physiology. But it is not.
In the second edition of Stuart Ira Fox’s Human Physiology, the word Evolution is not even listed in the index. In reading through a majority of the 700 pages, I have found the word Evolution used on only four pages.[24] None of these references is essential to understanding human physiology.
It is true that genetic mutations are observable. Studying genetic mutations is important to medical science because they are known to cause diseases such as cancer.[25] However, genetic mutations that lead to defective cellular operation are hardly convincing evidence for the common descent promoted by Evolutionists.
The broad claim of common descent is like the hypothetical graviton particle (a theoretical cause for gravity). The hypothetical graviton has not contributed to technical advancements. For example, engineers did not need to speculate about gravitons to land men on the moon. They only needed to apply Newton
Dr. Bruce Alberts (a former 2-term president of the NAS) has pointed out that students interested in the next generation of biological research need to study mathematics, chemistry and physics.[26] But Alberts pointed out that many graduate students don’t see these subjects as being “central to carrying out research in molecular biology.”[27]
This is unfortunate. These subjects are vital to deciphering the complexities behind how living organisms function. As Ernest Rutherford put it, “All science is either physics or stamp collecting.”[28] I believe overstating the importance of Evolution has actually hurt biological science by taking the focus away from physics and chemistry.
If Evolution is given a very narrow meaning (that a species genetic composition changes over time), it is not a subject of controversy. What is controversial is the broad meaning given to Evolution (that all species are connected through a common ancestor).
Skeptics of the Fact of Evolution often suggest that two very different meanings for the word Evolution create a terminology problem. The narrow meaning of Evolution is not controversial. But the broad meaning of Evolution is controversial.
The words fact and theory also have multiple meanings associated with them. For example, a famous Evolutionist (Steven J. Gould) has argued that Evolution is both a theory and a fact.[29]
In his essay about this topic, Gould stated that a “fact does not mean absolute certainty.”[30] This is very different from the common understanding of fact. If Evolution is a fact that has no “absolute certainty,” then the debate revolves around what parts of Evolution (if any) are absolutely certain.
The issue of “absolute certainty” is at the center of the debate. Gould argues that only the exact mechanisms of Evolution are being debated. But many people doubt that the broad claim of common descent is “absolutely certain.”
Gould clearly states his view that Evolution is a Fact.[31] But he gives no clear definition of what he means by Evolution – the narrow meaning of genetic change or the broad meaning of common descent. Therefore, Gould’s article does nothing to clear away the ambiguity of Evolution’s multiple meanings.
There is much about the broad meaning for Evolution that is not “absolute certain.” For example, Colin Patterson (another famous Evolutionist) once asked the question: “Can you tell me anything about evolution, any one thing that is true”?[32]
Patterson’s question implies that very little (if anything) about Evolution is “absolutely certain.” Identifying what about Evolution is properly termed an “objective fact” rather than a “subjective opinion” is the substance of the debate.
The best way to illustrate this difference is by using examples.
Example 1:
Objective Fact: 1 + 1 = 2
Reasoning: The basic definition of numbers makes this statement indisputable.
Subjective Opinion: “Two is better than one"
Reasoning: It all depends. To a child, two pieces of candy might be considered better than one. To an adult, two broken windows are not likely to be considered better than one. Whether two is better than one is thus ambiguous. It is case dependent and a matter of subjective opinion.
Example 2:
Objective Fact: Roberto Clemente had exactly 3000 hits in his distinguished baseball career.
Reasoning: Reliable baseball statistics make this indisputable.[33]
Subjective Opinion: Roberto Clemente was the best baseball player of his era.
Reasoning: Roberto Clemente was undoubtedly a great baseball player. But fans of Willie Mays and Hank Aaron would likely consider this statement very disputable.
Consider the following description:
A raging debate exists in America
This is a reasonably accurate description of the intense political debate in America
Religious values and opinions play a role in nearly every debate. This is certainly true when one looks at the political debate. It is also true when one looks at the debate over Evolution. Religious opinions occupy a virtual rainbow that contains very many viewpoints. Everybody lies somewhere on the rainbow of religious opinion.
On one side of the rainbow are devoted advocates of some major religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) who firmly believe that God exists and that he was actively involved in creating life. On the other side of the rainbow are outspoken atheists like biologist Richard Dawkins, who find their intellectual fulfillment in Evolution.[34]
Evolutionists are fond of labeling all skeptics as Creationists, as if Creation were a dirty word that is completely incompatible with science. For example, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences argues that “theistic evolution” is compatible with science, but “creationism” is not.[35]
Phillip Johnson has argued that this line of thinking is driven by a bias towards “absolute naturalism.”[36] It would not be surprising to find that atheists promote “absolute naturalism” because anything supernatural has a fundamental conflict with an atheistic worldview.
While many Evolutionists have a tendency to label all Creationists as religiously biased, an unbiased person might consider whether at least some Evolutionists are driven by an anti-religious bias. For example, a 1998 poll indicated that an overwhelming percentage of NAS Biologists (95%) profess atheistic and agnostic beliefs.[37]
In this book, I promote the concept of “religiously neutral science.” Religiously neutral science is not based on any a priori assumptions about whether God does or does-not exist. If such a priori assumptions are eliminated, possible acts of supernatural intervention would not be taboo, and it would be considered scientifically acceptable to be skeptical about Evolution.
In the political debate, politicians regularly call into question the fallibility of other politicians. Nevertheless, quite a few politicians act as if they have all the answers. However, even people without extensive academic credentials can see the foolishness in such behavior.
Advanced degrees from prestigious universities have not enabled politicians to create a Utopia. Politicians do not have all the answers. It is similar with the debate over Evolution. Scientists do not have all the answers. They are as fallible as politicians are.
One example of scientific fallibility is the now rejected theory of Eugenics. In State of Fear
Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis … The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; … Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; … and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton , Stanford and Johns Hopkins. …
These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported the effort.[38]
Although Eugenics was once widely embraced by the scientific community, it has now been rejected as “pseudo-science.” Pseudo-science can have very drastic consequences. For example, the Nazi drive to form a master race began with the Eugenics movement of the US, and the roots of Eugenics trace back to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.[39]
The Theory of Eugenics is one of many popular scientific theories that have ultimately been discredited and rejected. In some cases, this process has taken hundreds of years. This was the case with “Spontaneous Generation.”[40]
Scientists are not immune from being stuck in a groove that closes their eyes to other possibilities. In science, such a groove is known as a paradigm.[41] Thomas Kuhn (a historian of science) has argued that scientists tend to resist any shift in the reigning paradigm.[42]
There is no doubt that Evolution became the reigning paradigm of mainstream biology by the 20th century. But the paradigm of Evolution may ultimately become as discredited as Spontaneous Generation and Eugenics. After all, scientists are not infallible.
That is a matter of subjective opinion. But I think there is reason to doubt that many Evolutionists represent the epitome of objectivity. For example, consider this quote from R.L. Trivers in the Foreword to the first edition of Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene:
The chimpanzee and human share 99.5% of their evolutionary history, yet most human thinkers regard the chimp as a malformed, irrelevant oddity while seeing themselves as stepping-stones to the almighty. To an evolutionist, this cannot be so. There exists no objective basis to elevate one species above another.[43]
It is hard for me to imagine how any objective person could make a statement like that. Chimps are entirely incapable of any of the technological accomplishments discussed above. That anybody could ignore this vast intellectual difference between humans and chimps is a clear sign to me that they lack objectivity.
However, many Evolutionists fail to see that a lack of objectivity causes them to ignore the vast difference between human and chimp intelligence. For example, here is a comment from a blog entry that defends the Trivers quote:
Humans have only had internal combustion engines for a century or so, and it's only a few thousand years ago that we were using chimpanzee level technology (i.e. sharp sticks and stones.) Your argument doesn't support the differences being as vast as you claim, as humans have only recently surpassed chimp technology in evolutionary time.[44]
Actually, humans built the great pyramids over four thousand years ago – which is a remarkable technological achievement by any objective standard.[45] The fact that the internal combustion engine was only developed in recent times is irrelevant. The point is that human beings are capable of this type of intelligent action, whereas chimps are not.
Perhaps human beings have never lacked such an intelligent capability. Perhaps chimps will never have it. For example, in primitive cultures of our modern world, human beings still use primitive tools, but didn’t doesn’t mean that they are incapable of intelligent thought.
Consider, for example, the case of the African pygmy Ota Benga. Pygmies like Benga were thought to be lower on the scale of evolutionary development than other modern-day humans. To demonstrate this concept, Benga was brought to America from the Belgian Congo and placed in the monkey cage of a Bronx Zoo in the early 1900’s.[46]
The Evolutionary based thinking of the Eugenics movement, led to Benga being put in a zoo exhibit with an Orangutan for a roommate.[47] But after a public outcry, Benga was released from the zoo. He attended school and learned English.[48] However, the mistreated and depressed Benga eventually shot himself through the heart with a borrowed gun.[49]
Evolutionists are still seeking to compare pygmies to other humans through genetic analysis. A 2009 article in Science News documents an attempt to estimate when this hunter-gatherer tribe separated from other African tribes. The latest estimates range from 5000 to 70,000 years ago with uncertainties on the order of tens of thousands of years.[50]
The science of the origin of pygmies is very uncertain. But one thing is certain about Ota Benga: He was more a man and less a monkey than some Evolutionists of the early 19th century believed. The Evolutionists’ theory that Benga’s ancestors were ever anything but human beings is more a matter of subjective opinion than objective fact.[51]
If you change the composition of judges or a jury, court rulings can change suddenly. Everybody involved in the debate over abortion is well aware of this. This is why court rulings are not likely to end the debate over Evolution. Nevertheless, groups that support Evolution have used the court systems in an attempt to squash skeptical debate.[52]
I believe this book is for you, if you are willing to turn Colin Patterson’s question around and ask yourself this question:
What do I know about Evolution that is absolutely certain?
If you do that with a sincere heart, I believe you will find that much about the so-called Fact of Evolution is actually subjective opinion rather than objective fact.
I have spent approximately a 5-year of effort in writing this book. In that timeframe, I have read a large amount of technical material. This book is a summary of a vast amount of information that I have learned from reading the work of others. My goal has been to organize that material into a cohesive thread focused on analyzing the Fact of Evolution.
I have kept the language that I use as simple as possible so that both technical and non-technical readers can understand it. I do quote passages from technical sources to illustrate specific points that I wish to make. But I have tried to select passages that use a minimum amount of technical jargon, and to explain technical terms in simple words.
The Preface provides a brief overview of the structure of this book. You can access all of the chapters in this book through the “The Fact of Evolution?” website. The order of the chapters is somewhat arbitrary. Depending on your interest and pre-existing knowledge, the chapters of this book can probably be read in almost any order.
Acknowledgements
Endnotes are contained in the following section. The following shorthand notation connects the numbered endnotes to permission statements:
N(x, y, z, …) indicates endnotes numbered ‘x’, ‘y’, ‘z’.
I gratefully acknowledge permission to reproduce quotes from the following copyrighted material:
N(15, 16, 35): Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1999), http://www.nap.edu/catalog/6024.html. Reprinted with permission from Science, Evolution, and Creationism, 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington , D.C.
Notes and References
[1]. “Results of public opinion polls on evolution and creation science,” http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm.
[2]. Science and Creationism: A View from the
[3]. “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism,” Discovery Institute, January 2010, http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660.
[4]. Science and Creationism: A View from the
[15]. Science and Creationism: A View from the
[16]. Science and Creationism: A View from the
[21]. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 30th annv. ed. (
[22]. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, 1859, http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/.
[23]. Stuart Ira Fox, Human Physiology, 6th ed., Chapter 1 Summary, http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/ap/foxhumphys/student/olc/chap01summary.html.
[24]. Stuart Ira Fox, Human Physiology, 2nd ed. (Dubuque, IL: Wm. C. Brown, 1987), pp. 19, 60, 228, 620.
[25]. “What is Cancer? What Causes Cancer?” Medical News Today, See section entitled “Genes – The DNA Type,” http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/info/cancer-oncology/whatiscancer.php.
[26]. Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell 92(3):291-4, 6 February 1998, p. 293, as quoted from Science Direct, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WSN-419K592-1/2/fc6ab6ca1e175d970b76c6a10ad6e81a.
[27]. Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell 92(3):291-4, 6 February 1998, p. 293, as quoted from Science Direct, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WSN-419K592-1/2/fc6ab6ca1e175d970b76c6a10ad6e81a.
[28]. “Ernest Rutherford: 1871-1937,” A Science Odyssey, PBS, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/bpruth.html, 6 November 2010 (from Google Cache).
[29]. Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover, 2 May 1981: 34-37, as referenced on the website: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html.
[30]. Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2 May 1981: 34-37; as quoted from the website: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html.
[31]. Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2 May 1981: 34-37; as referenced from the website: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html.
[32]. Paul Nelson, “Colin Patterson Revisits His Famous Question about Evolution”, Access Research Network, http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/colpat171.htm.
[34]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (
[35]. Science and Creationism: A View from the
[36]. Phillip E. Johnson, “Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism,” http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm.
[37]. John G. West, “The Gospel according to Darwin,” National Review Online, 12 February 2007, http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWEzZGRiMzE0ZDRhNzE2ZGJjMjVjYTZhMzJiZjJmMzI.
[38]. Michael Crichton, State of
[39]. Edwin Black, “Eugenics and the Nazis -- the
[40]. Russell Levine and Chris Evers, “The Slow Death of Spontaneous Generation (1668-1859),”Access Excellence @ the
[43]. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 30th annv. ed. (
[44]. User Comment, “The chimpanzee and the human share about 99.5% of their evolutionary history, yet most human thinkers regard the chimp as a malformed, irrelevant oddity while seeing themselves as an alternative to the Almighty.” Reddit – Science Blog, http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/aqvxj/the_chimpanzee_and_the_human_share_about_995_per/.
[45]. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramids and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza for background information.
[46]. “From the
[49]. Jerry Bergman, “Ota Benga – The man who was put on display at the zoo,” Creation 16(1):48-50, December 1993, http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/otabenga.asp.
[50]. Bruce Bower, “African pygmies may be older than thought,” Science News, 9 April 2009, http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/42666/title/African_pygmies_may_be_older_than_thought.
[51]. For more about Ota Benga and the racist treatment he received, I recommend the following source: Ken Ham, “
[52]. “Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism,” NCSE, 14 February 2001, http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism.
No comments:
Post a Comment