A well-known danger with circumstantial evidence is that it can be very deceptive. It can easily appear more airtight than it actually is. In the words of Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes character:
“Circumstantial Evidence is a very tricky thing,” answered Holmes thoughtfully; “it may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something different …
There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact, he answered, laughing.”[1]
In the Stalag 17 movie, William Holden portrays a fictitious World War 2 prisoner who is accused of supplying traitorous information to the Germans.[2] Holden’s character (Sefton) is innocent of this charge. However, two pieces of circumstantial evidence convinced Sefton’s fellow prisoners of his guilt. This dangerous leap in logic led them to beat Sefton for a traitorous crime that he did not commit.
Everybody in his barracks knew that Sefton bet against a pair of prisoners attempting an escape. They also knew he received a special privilege from the German guards shortly after the prisoners died in their escape attempt. His fellow prisoners put these two pieces of circumstantial evidence together to conclude that Sefton tipped off the Germans to the escape attempt in return for his special privilege. In his defense, Sefton stated:
You're all wire happy, boys. You've been in this camp too long. You put two and two together and it comes out four. Only it ain't four.[3]
After brutally beating Sefton, his fellow prisoners eventually find out that he was not the guilty party. That is the danger associated with circumstantial evidence. It can appear to offer very compelling proof. However, circumstantial evidence always requires speculation to bridge the gap between the evidence and the conclusion. Thus, the speculative conclusion may be false even when the circumstantial evidence is factual.
If one examines the debate over the Theory of Spontaneous Generation, it is easy to see how a strict reliance on circumstantial evidence led to a major mistake in the formation of a scientific theory. The once widespread acceptance of the Spontaneous Generation is documented in a Russell Levine and Chris Evers article published on the Access Excellence website of the National Health Museum.[4]
The evidence for the new life forms spontaneously appearing in decaying matter seemed obvious, even though this does not happen. Some famous experiments sought to prove Spontaneous Generation, while others sought to disprove it. Finally, an experiment by Louis Pasteur dealt a deathblow to the circumstantial evidence that had allegedly proven a false theory. This is described in this quote from Levine and Evers:
The theory of spontaneous generation was finally laid to rest in 1859 by the young French chemist, Louis Pasteur. The French Academy
In order for Evolution to be a fact, at some point in time an original organism must have spontaneously appeared. If no original organism appeared spontaneously, there can be no long sequence of Evolutionary change to it. This fundamental piece of the puzzle is often downplayed, because as Richard Hutton (executive producer of the PBS Evolution series) has pointed out, the evidence for the origin of life “isn’t very good.”[6]
For a long time, the circumstantial evidence for the Theory of Spontaneous Generation appeared to be very strong. Nobody disputed that maggots seemed to spontaneously appear in rotting meat. In a similar way, the case for the Fact of Evolution rests on biological similarities that nobody denies:
Physical Similarities: Many animals have obvious physically similarities. For example, mammals generally have 2 eyes, 2 ears, 1 mouth, 1 nose, 1 head, 1 brain, 1 heart.
Genetic Similarities: All life forms (plant, animals, microbes) are based on cells with a similar biochemical structure (DNA; Proteins, etc.).
Nobody doubts that two and two add up to four. However, do physical similarities (morphology) and a similar biochemical structure (genetics) add together to prove the Fact of Evolution? Is the Fact of Evolution the only possible explanation for these pieces of circumstantial evidence? Or are there other possible alternatives that could explain these similarities?
In Refuting Evolution 2, Jonathan Sarfati argued that the same circumstantial evidence used to infer Evolution might also be used to infer a common-designer rather than a common-ancestor.[7] However, many Evolutionists seek to avoid any discussion of this alternative. This is true even though the arguments for Intelligent Design are consistent with the evidence of biological similarities.
For example, Intelligent Design advocates don’t dispute that living organisms are formed from the same basic set of chemical molecules. Nor do they deny that many living organisms share some amount of common structure. However, they maintain that the mere presence of common structures does not necessarily imply that living organisms came into existence without the input of an intelligent designer.
For example, passenger autos, pickup trucks and racing cars all contain similar structures that are formed from the same set of chemical elements. These vehicles share rubber tires, glass windows, metal frames, and engines driven by petroleum based fuel. Despite the common structures and common materials, these complex systems are the product of an intelligent designer and not a random evolutionary process.
Many people belittle the immense complexity that exists in biological life forms as being unworthy of a designer. For example, a friend of mine heard this comment from a commercial photographer she met: “If a 4th grader submitted a science project that was this world with the people in it, he would receive a D or F as a grade because of all the flaws.” The response I sent him went something like this:
Imagine an engineer who built a set of devices that used the energy of sunlight to build copies of themselves from the raw materials in common soil. Imagine that this engineer built a set of even more advanced devices capable of consuming the soil-eating devices as an energy source. The more advanced devices could do all sorts of intelligent tasks, like walking around taking pictures with a camera, and even publishing books filled with those pictures. Somehow, the failed 4th grade science project that is “life on earth” was able to accomplish that. The very best human engineers are not even close.
Life forms sharing common chemical elements are not surprising. Plants convert soil nutrients into plant matter according to their specific genetic program, herbivores convert digested plant matter into animal matter according to their specific genetic program, and carnivores convert digested animal matter into their own animal matter according to their specific genetic program. All higher-level organisms depend upon this food chain.
If one ponders the food chain, it is obvious that all life forms are ultimately constructed from the chemical elements located in soil. Thus, the Genesis account of man having been formed from the dust of the ground seems a valid scientific possibility.[8] Nevertheless, when I observe human beings, they certainly do not look or feel as if they share much in common with the dust of the ground.
The author of the Genesis account also was aware of the automatic recycling system that returns the chemical elements of dead plants and animals back into the soil, instead of leaving them locked up forever:
By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.[9] (Genesis 3:19 NIV)
Both plants and animals are formed from chemicals contained in the earth’s soil and they will ultimately return these chemicals to the earth’s soil. If this were not so, the earth would run out of the chemicals needed for forming new living organisms. Consequently, sharing a common chemical structure derived from soil nutrients seems to be as consistent with the Genesis creation account, as it does with the Fact of Evolution.
In Refuting Evolution 2, Jonathan Sarfati has pointed out that there is a distinct difference between “observational science” (where results are subject to human observation) and “origins science” (which requires speculative conclusions based on circumstantial evidence).[10] The Fact of Evolution is not a direct result of observational science, but a speculative conclusion based on circumstantial evidence.
Because Origins Science requires human speculation, it is dependent on the philosophical assumptions held by the human speculators. As the Sherlock Holmes quote indicated, a slight shift in your point of view can lead to drastically different interpretations of circumstantial evidence. If his fellow prisoners didn’t hate Sefton, one can imagine they would not have been so quick to judge his guilt.
According to the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey, close to 80% of Americans surveyed identified themselves as Christian, while less than 1% identified themselves as a either atheists or agnostics (with 13 % selecting the no-religious option).[11] In contrast, a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) indicated that nearly 95 percent of NAS biologists are atheists or agnostics.[12]
Thus, the NAS biologists are much more inclined to identify themselves as atheists and agnostics than a typical American citizen. Could an anti-religious bias drive a typical NAS biologist to promote the Fact of Evolution and avoid any consideration of an Intelligent Designer? The bias of both religious and anti-religious views can prevent an honest discussion of all alternatives that fit the available evidence.
Uncritically accepting circumstantial evidence can lead to unwarranted conclusions. The premature judging of the Sefton character in Stalag 17 is one example of this. I believe the NAS publications Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences[13] and Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science[14] provide a similar example of a rush-to-judgment driven by personal biases.
These publications are similar to speeches at a political convention, where only one side of the debate is presented. In the above NAS publications, Biblical Creationists and proponents for Intelligent Design are described in a condescending fashion using straw man arguments, in which no actual advocates for Biblical Creationism or Intelligent Design are ever referenced.[15]
To understand the one-sided nature of these NAS Publications, consider this passage describing Intelligent Design Theory:
Molecular evolutionary data counter a recent proposition called "intelligent design theory." Proponents of this idea argue that structural complexity is proof of the direct hand of God in specially creating organisms as they are today. These arguments echo those of the 18th century cleric William Paley who held that the vertebrate eye, because of its intricate organization, had been specially designed in its present form by an omnipotent Creator. Modem-day intelligent design proponents argue that molecular structures such as DNA, or molecular processes such as the many steps that blood goes through when it clots, are so irreducibly complex that they can function only if all the components are operative at once. Thus, proponents of intelligent design say that these structures and processes could not have evolved in the stepwise mode characteristic of natural selection.[16]
The term “irreducible complexity” was defined by Michael Behe in his book Darwin’s Black Box.[17] Although his work is common knowledge, the NAS publication does not cite Behe by name or give the reader any clue about his scientific credentials (Behe is a professor in Biochemistry at Lehigh University
Rather than using straw men, Behe’s website responds directly to prominent critics, such as Evolutionists Russell Doolittle and Kenneth Miller.[19] An examination of Darwin’s Black Box also reveals that Behe never refers to the “direct hand of God” like the straw men in the NAS publication do. Instead, Behe argues that the existence of an Intelligent Designer can be inferred based on principles of scientific observation.[20]
Although the Intelligent Design Theory promoted by Behe has no direct connection to the Biblical Creation account, there are certainly prominent Creationists who believe that the “direct hand of God” is responsible for the generation of life on earth. However, rather than citing any Creationist source directly, the NAS again invokes straw men:
Some creationists cite what they say is an incomplete fossil record as evidence for the failure of evolutionary theory. The fossil record was incomplete in Darwin
Using straw men citations prevents readers from viewing any details used to form an opposing opinion. The reader of the NAS publication is left with the impression that the fossil record of today provides undeniable proof for the Fact of Evolution. However, if one read furthers in the same NAS publication, it is apparent that a leading Evolutionist (Stephen Jay Gould) describes what could be called “important gaps” in the fossil record.
Gould’s quote about “extreme rarity of transitional forms” is widely distributed on the Internet (over 11 million web pages are listed in a Google search).[22]A Creation Ministries International article by Gary Bates is one of many sources that discuss the implications of Gould’s famous quote:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”[23]
Evolutionists have argued that evolutionary skeptics (often described as Creationists) use this quote out of context. However, no amount of additional context suggests that Gould didn’t intend to say that “transitional forms” in the fossil record are rare, that paleontologists have kept this fact a “trade secret,” and that species appear “fully formed” with no evidence of a gradual transformation from other species.[24]
To be perfectly clear, Gould is not arguing that Evolution is false. However, I don’t know any skeptic who has ever made that claim. Evolutionary skeptics cite Gould’s quote because it demonstrates that the fossil record does not provide evidence for the gradual change long assumed by many Evolutionists. This additional context from Gould’s Natural History article makes that very clear:
I only wish to point out that it [gradualism] is never "seen" in the rocks.[25]
Never is an unambiguous word. Therefore, it is valid for Evolutionary skeptics to use Gould’s expert paleontological testimony to make the case that the fossil record doesn’t provide evidence for gradualistic evolution. The so-called Cambrian explosion is a prime example of this. In The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins notes the sudden appearance of advanced invertebrate fossils in the Cambrian explosion:
It is as if they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.[26]
Further context around the Dawkins quote makes it clear that major gaps in the fossil record are real.[27] He describes how advocates for both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium (Gould and Eldredge’s theory) agree on this point. Furthermore, a large set of quotes by other Evolutionists also call into question the NAS contention that many of the important fossil gaps “have been filled by subsequent paleontological research.”[28]
Numerous publications have discussed the still current fossil gaps. For example, in an interview with Lee Strobel (author of The Case For A Creator), Jonathan Wells summarizes the massive changes of the Cambrian Explosion:
Here’s what the record shows: there were some jellyfish, sponges, and worms prior to the Cambrian, although there’s no evidence to support Darwin
Then at the beginning of the Cambrian – boom! – all of a sudden we see representatives of arthropods, modern representatives of which are insects, crabs, and the like, echinoderms, which include modern starfish and sea urchins, chordates, which include vertebrates, and so forth. Mammals came later, but the chordates – the major group to which they belong – were right at the beginning of the Cambrian.
This is absolutely contrary to Darwin
In The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins describes divine-creation as an alternative explanation for the evidence of the Cambrian explosion.[30] However, according to Dawkins, advocates for both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium hold Creationism in utter contempt.[31] But an honest detective who finds his police-chief’s fingerprints on a murder weapon can’t ignore the evidence that he has found, regardless of his feelings.
In a prosecuting attorney’s case, the defendant is presented as unquestionably guilty. In a defense attorney’s case, the defendant is presented as unquestionably innocent. For a jury to reach a fair verdict, it must honestly evaluate the circumstantial evidence on both sides of the case. To aid this process, experts are often asked to testify. In the case of human fossils, Richard Leakey and David Pilbeam are two qualified experts.
The famous Leakey family has long been involved in researching human origins, and nobody doubts their expert knowledge of the human fossil record.[32] These quotes from Richard Leakey’s The Making of Mankind describe how the alleged evolutionary connection between apes and human beings is based on a meager amount of fossil evidence:
Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence. …
David Pilbeam [a well-known expert in human evolution from Yale University
As stated above, a prosecuting attorney often presents a drastically different view about the quality of evidence than a defense attorney. Leakey and Pilbeam are commendably honest in describing the sketchy nature of fossil evidence for human origins. However, their honesty contrasts with the one-sided case made in Science and Creationism – A View from the National Academy of Science:
Many of the most important advances in paleontology over the past century relate to the evolutionary history of humans. Not one but many connecting links—intermediate between and along various branches of the human family tree—have been found as fossils. These linking fossils occur in geological deposits of intermediate age. They document the time and rate at which primate and human evolution occurred.
Scientists have unearthed thousands of fossil specimens representing members of the human family. A great number of these cannot be assigned to the modem human species, Homo sapiens. Most of these specimens have been well dated, often by means of radiometric techniques. They reveal a well-branched tree, parts of which trace a general evolutionary sequence leading from ape-like forms to modern humans.[34]
It appears from this NAS quote that the fossil record offers unchallengeable proof of an evolutionary tree leading from ape-like creatures to human beings. However, there are certainly divergent views on this topic. For example, J.S. Jones (head of the Genetics Department at the University College London) offered this quote in a book review that appeared in the scientific journal Nature:
… [the fossil record’s] incompleteness means that it is very likely that no fossil hominid yet found is on the direct line of descent to modern humans.[35]
In Refuting Evolution, Jonathan Sarfati cites further evidence to demonstrate that the NAS publications gloss over the controversy surrounding the connection of ape-men to human beings:
The best-known fossil apemen are the extinct australopithecines (the name means ‘southern ape’). Teaching about Evolution [an NAS Publication] on page 20 illustrates a series of five skulls: Australopithecus afarensis (‘Lucy’), A. africanus, early Homo, H. erectus, and H. sapiens (modern man). However, many evolutionists disagree with this picture. For example, Donald Johanson, the discoverer of ‘Lucy,’ places A. africanus on a side-branch not leading to man. Anatomist Charles Oxnard performed a detailed analysis of different bones of A. africanus and concluded that it did not walk upright in the human manner and was more distinct from both humans and chimpanzees than these are from each other. More recently, Oxnard
It is now recognized widely that the australopithecines are not structurally closely similar to humans, that they must have been living at least in part in arboreal [tree] environments, and that many of the later specimens were contemporaneous [living at the same time] or almost so with the earlier members of the genus Homo.
If it is in the best interest of science to seek the truth, then a fair presentation of issues regarding the circumstantial evidence of the fossil record is required. However, instead of providing a fair presentation, the above NAS publications act like a prosecuting attorney eager to railroad a defendant. A similar one-sided presentation is also used by the NAS publications in their discussion of the genetic evidence for the Fact of Evolution.
For example, the Molecular Clock refers to the concept that the evolutionary histories of different organisms can be deduced by comparing differences in the amino-acid sequences for proteins. There is no doubt that supporters of the Fact of Evolution seek to demonstrate that changes in protein sequences (genetic-structure) align with changes in the physical appearance of organisms (morphology).
However, the clear match that was hoped for when this effort started is now far from clear. Research has shown that different species groupings (phylogenies) for the Tree of Life are generated if different proteins (genes) are used to calibrate the molecular clock. For example, here is a quote from Darwin’s Proof by Cornelius Hunter:
In addition to conflicting with phylogenies based on visible features, molecular phylogenies are also sometimes internally inconsistent. For instance, a study of 188 different genes from five different light-harvesting bacteria, each from a different phyla [a phyla is the second from the top level in Linnaeus’s hierarchical classification scheme[37]], showed dramatic inconsistencies. Instead of the 188 genes pointing to a particular phylogeny they showed no strong preference. In fact, every conceivable phylogeny found support amongst the 188 genes. Once could argue for completely different evolutionary histories depending on which genes were selected – the different design features did not converge to the same phylogeny.[38]
There are other reasons why the Molecular Clock fails to provide clear proof for the Fact of Evolution. For example, Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial describes how comparing the Cytochrome c protein among a wide variety of animals and plants provided no evidence for the existence of the intermediate species. In Johnson’s words:
… there is no surviving trace of any intermediates that might have filled the “space” between single-celled and multicellular life.[39]
Using the circumstantial evidence of physical similarities and molecular comparisons to prove Evolutionary relationships is a highly speculative task. In Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton discussed some puzzling issues related to the molecular clock.[40] In Refuting Evolution 2 Jonathan Sarfati discusses one of the puzzling issues that Denton
Another problem for evolutionists is how the molecular clock could have ticked so evenly in any given protein in so many different organisms (...). For this to work, there must be a constant mutation rate per unit time over most types of organism. But observations show that there is a constant mutation rate per generation, so it should be much faster for organisms with a fast generation time, such as bacteria, and much slower for elephants. In insects, generation times range from weeks in flies to many years in cicadas, and yet there is no evidence that flies are more diverged than cicadas. So evidence is against the theory that the observed patterns are due to mutations accumulating over time as life evolved.[41]
Chapter 3 of this book pointed out the controversial nature of the Tree of Life that is promoted by Evolutionists. In an interview with the Washington Post, Richard Hutton has described the fierce fighting over whether genes or physical appearance are better suited to deduce evolutionary relationships.[42] There can only be a controversy if these two methods disagree on the structure for an evolutionary Tree of Life.
However, the above NAS publications fail to discuss any of the mismatches between the trees derived from genetic and anatomical comparisons. Rather than even mentioning the well known mismatches, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences emphasizes that a consistency of hemoglobin comparisons with anatomical structures provides strong proof for common descent.[43]
This is not unlike a zealous prosecuting attorney willingly ignoring any evidence that exonerates the defendant. In contrast, some Evolutionists have willingly pointed out that there is a great deal of uncertainty associated with the Fact of Evolution. For example, Colin Patterson (a senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum
At a 1981 museum talk, Patterson asked his audience “Can you tell me anything you know about Evolution, any one thing that is true?”[44] In Darwin on Trial, Phillip Johnson describes how the audience responded to Patterson’s question with utter silence.[45] Although Patterson later retreated from his comments because of enormous pressure from the community of Evolutionists, his level of certainty didn’t improve much over time.
In a 1994 essay, one of two things that Patterson claimed to be certain of was that the majority of DNA mutations “take place despite natural selection rather than because of it.”[46] The other item that Patterson claimed to know for sure was based on a statistical observation of mutation rates. Patterson concluded that while he knew something about statistics on mutations, this did not increase his knowledge about Evolution.[47]
Science is supposed to build truth from the ground level up. However, scientists assumed that a top-level assertion (the Fact of Evolution) was true long before modern knowledge about low-level genetic details were discovered. Compiling volumes of statistics involving mutations and genetic differences will never be sufficient to prove the broad “molecules to man” claim of the Fact of Evolution.[48]
Many low-level details of genetic analysis have actually increased the uncertainty associated with the Fact of Evolution. Consider, for example, Patterson’s contention that most DNA mutations aren’t driven by natural selection, but seem to occur despite the guidance of natural selection. That is not what a believer in the Fact of Evolution would expect. But such controversies are often ignored when promoting the Fact of Evolution.
Chapter 4 of this book discussed how scientists have a tendency to claim that their speculative opinions equate to facts. Although science is generally thought of as a strictly factual subject, speculative conclusions of scientists have a track record of appearing in news accounts with the authority of scientific facts. For example, consider this quote from a 1975 article published in Newsweek magazine:
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.[49]
Anyone familiar with the current media barrage about how serious the world crisis of global warming is might conclude that this 1975 article was far ahead of its time in sounding the warning about global warming. However, if one reads further in the Newsweek article, the article is about global cooling, and not global warming:
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down.[50]
The alarming crisis of global cooling was presented by the media in the 1970’s as a dominant concern of scientists. In a rapid turnaround, the Fact of Global Warming is promoted by many of today’s scientists. However, does global warming unambiguously follow from the circumstantial evidence of climate measurements? Before forming an opinion, consider this description of an abrupt turnaround by a leading scientist:
In the 1980s and early 1990s, when concern about global warming was in its infancy, little was known about the mechanics of how it could occur ... With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.[51]
Allegre is a member of both the French Academy
Consider the Theory of Eugenics – “the idea that society could be improved by better breeding citizens.”[53] In the US Germany
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.[55]
In the book What it Means to be 98% chimpanzee, Jonathan Marks describes how the scientific community was unable to separate the assertion of the Fact of Eugenics from the reality that Eugenics was not a fact:
The point is that geneticists did not – until very late in the game – say, “Hey this is based on ignorance and prejudice, not on fact! It’s bound to die!”
They couldn’t tell the fact from the assertion of fact.[56]
The integrity of the scientific community is based on it functioning as an impartial jury. Impartial juries are willing to discuss all forms of evidence. Can a set of NAS biologists who overwhelmingly profess atheistic and agnostic beliefs form an impartial jury that fairly judges the evidence for the Fact of Evolution? I believe that an honest analysis suggests that the answer to this question is no.
If the Fact of Evolution were being put on trial, an opposing lawyer would be entitled to make the case for reasonable doubt. I can imagine this hypothetical closing argument:
The earth contains a system of complex living organisms that share common chemical structures and interact with each other in complex ways. This is an observable fact that nobody denies. Life on earth functions like a perpetual motion machine that is driven by the energy of the sun. It automatically reproduces new copies of itself and old organisms are automatically recycled at the end of their life cycle.
The Fact of Evolution is the converse of the proverbial Murphy’s Law. In Evolution, a piece of primordial jelly bread allegedly fell onto the floor and the complex system of life on earth climbed out of the mess. If intelligent human engineers can’t use the heat of the sun and the chemical ingredients of the soil to create a self-maintaining perpetual motion machine, why should anybody believe that Evolution could?
Evolutionists would need to offer a huge set of unambiguous evidence to justify such an extraordinary claim. However, the pieces of circumstantial evidence cited by advocates for the Fact of Evolution do not provide this unambiguous proof. Thus, the Fact of Evolution is far less certain that the result of adding two and two together to get four.
The movie character Sefton was wrongly convicted by his fellow prisoners in what amounted to a kangaroo court. Evidence that calls the Fact of Evolution into question is currently being denied a public hearing by atheists and agnostics who detest anything that suggests the possibility of an Intelligent Designer, whether natural or supernatural. This biased position is inconsistent with the practice of open and honest science.
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(7, 10, 41): From Refuting Evolution 2 by Jonathan Sarfati, 4th printing, April 2005. Used with permission from the publisher – Master Books, Green Forest , AR
N(7, 10, 23, 36, 41): Used with permission of Creation Ministries International – www.creation.com.
N(8, 9): Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 Biblica. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.
N(13, 15, 16): 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.
N(14): Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1998), http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787. Reprinted with permission from Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, 1998 by the National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington , D.C.
N(33, 35, 48): Used with permission from Answers in Genesis – www.answersingenesis.org.
N(36): From Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, 18th printing, May 2005. Used with permission from the publisher – Master Books, Green Forest , AR
N(38): Cornelius Hunter, Darwin`s Proof (Grand Rapids, MI, Brazos Press, 2003). This quote falls within the Fair Use guidelines of Brazos Press: http://www.brazospress.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=9FC2E1F4E2464E5EADE1430BB2DF94E0&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&gid=71388274B3484F4181EFB4E4F5935148.
N(39): Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993). This quote falls within the Fair Use Guidelines of Intervarsity Press and Regnery Press.
N(40): Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, (Chevy Chase, MD: Adler and Adler, 1986). Used with permission from Michael Denton.
N(44. 46, 47): The Access Research Network permits this document to be reproduced in its entirety for non-commercial use: Paul Nelson, “Colin Patterson Revisits His Famous Question about Evolution”, http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/colpat171.htm.
N(53, 54, 56): Jonathan Marks, What It Means To Be 98% Chimpanzee: Apes, People, and Their Genes. (c) 2002 by the Regents of the University of California University of California University of California Press
Notes and References
[1]. Arthur Conan Doyle, “The Boscombe Valley Mystery,” 1891, as quoted from the website: http://sherlock-holmes.classic-literature.co.uk/the-boscombe-valley-mystery/ebook-page-02.asp.
[2]. “Stalag 17,” 1952, Directed by Billy Wilder, http://www.prisonflicks.com/reviews.php?filmID=66.
[3]. This quote is from a website that is no longer available: Billy Wilder and Edwin Blum, “Stalag 17 – Screenplay,” http://www.weeklyscript.com/Stalag%2017.txt, accessed on 8 March 2010. It can be verified from the movie itself: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalag_17 for background information.
[4]. Russell Levine and Chris Evers, “The Slow Death of Spontaneous Generation (1668-1859),” Access Excellence @ the National Health Museum
[5]. Russell Levine and Chris Evers, “The Slow Death of Spontaneous Generation (1668-1859),” Access Excellence @ the National Health Museum
[6]. Washington Post Interview with Richard Hutton: Executive Producer PBS "Evolution" Series, 26 September 2001, http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/01/evolution2_092601.htm.
[7]. Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution 2, 4th printing (Green Forest , AR
[8]. And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being. (Genesis 2:7 NIV), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2:7&version=NIV.
[9]. Genesis 3:19 NIV, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:19&version=NIV.
[10]. Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution 2, 4th printing (Green Forest , AR
[11]. American Religious Identification Survey, The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, 2001, http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris.pdf, pp. 10-13.
[12]. John G. West, “The Gospel according to Darwin
[13]. Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences
[14]. Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1998), http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=5787.
[15]. Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1999), pp. 20- 22, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=20, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=21, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=22.
[16]. Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy
[17]. Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: Free Press, 1996), pp. 39-45.
[19]. Michael J. Behe, “In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison,” 31 July 2000, http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_indefenseofbloodclottingcascade.htm.
[20]. Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: Free Press, 1996), pp. 187-231.
[21]. Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences
[22]. The following search on google.com reported 11,100,000 results on 28 June 2010: http://www.google.com/search?q=extreme+rarity+of+transitional+forms&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7DKUS_en.
[23]. Stephen J. Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977, as quoted from the website: Gary Bates, “That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils,” Creation 29(1):12–15, December 2006, http://creation.com/that-quoteabout-the-missing-transitional-fossils.
[24]. Chapter 12 discusses whether adding more context changes the meaning that skeptics of Evolution typically draw from Gould’s quote.
[25]. Stephen J. Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977, as quoted from the website: “The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines - Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes,” Copyright © 2004-2006 by the Talk-Origins Newsgroup, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html.
[26]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006), p. 327; Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), p. 229 from Chapter 9 “Puncturing punctuationism.”
[27]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006), p. 327; Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), pp. 229-230 from Chapter 9 “Puncturing punctuationism.” For additional commentary on the Dawkins quote (including further context) see: “FAQ: Why isn't intelligent design found published in peer-reviewed science journals?” Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center, http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1163.
[28]. For additional quotes documenting gaps in the fossil record, see the website: Steven E. Jones, “Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record #3: Gaps in the fossil record,” http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrc03.html.
[29]. Lee Strobel, The Case For A Creator (Grand Rapids , Michigan
[30]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006), p. 327; Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), p. 230 from Chapter 9 “Puncturing punctuationism.”
[31]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006), p. 327; Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), p. 230 from Chapter 9 “Puncturing punctuationism.”
[32]. Donald C. Johanson, “The Leakey Family – The Time 100 Most Important People of The Century,” Time Magazine, 29 March 1999, http://205.188.238.181/time/time100/scientist/profile/leakey.html. The same article is available here: Donald C. Johanson, “Anthropologists: The Leakey Family,” Time Magazine, 29 March 1999, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,990619,00.html.
[33]. Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind (London: Michael Joseph Limited, 1981), p. 43 as quoted from the website: Roger Patterson, Evolution Exposed, Chapter 10, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/origin-of-humans.
[34]. Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy
[35]. J.S. Jones, “A Thousand and One Eves,” Nature 345(6274):395-6, 31 May 1990, p. 395, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v345/n6274/pdf/345395a0.pdf, as quoted from the website: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i4/incomplete.asp.
[36]. Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, 18th printing (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1999), p. 80. Also see: http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-6-humans-images-of-god-or-advanced-apes.
[37]. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification for background information.
[38] Cornelius Hunter, Darwin`s Proof (Grand Rapids, MI, Brazos Press, 2003), p 57.
[39]. Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), p. 94. For a further discussion of this issue (including additional comments from Darwin on Trial) see the website: “Equidistant Proteins Disprove Evolution?” http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie011.html.
[40]. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, (Chevy Chase, MD: Adler and Adler, 1986), pp 274-307.
[41]. Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution 2, 4th printing (Green Forest , AR
[42]. Washington Post Interview with Richard Hutton "Evolution" Series Executive Producer, 26 September 2001, http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/01/evolution2_092601.htm.
[43]. Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy
[44]. Paul Nelson, “Colin Patterson Revisits His Famous Question about Evolution”, http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/colpat171.htm.
[45]. Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), p. 10.
[46]. Colin Patterson, "Null or minimal models," in Models in Phylogeny Reconstruction, eds. R.W. Scotland, D.J. Siebert, and D.M. Williams, Systematics Association Special Volume No. 52 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), p. 175, as quoted from: Paul Nelson, “Colin Patterson Revisits His Famous Question about Evolution”, http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/colpat171.htm.
[47]. Colin Patterson, "Null or minimal models," in Models in Phylogeny Reconstruction, eds. R.W. Scotland, D.J. Siebert, and D.M. Williams, Systematics Association Special Volume No. 52 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), p. 175, as quoted from: Paul Nelson, “Colin Patterson Revisits His Famous Question about Evolution”, http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/colpat171.htm.
[48]. “Molecules-to-man” and “Particles-to-people” are phrases used by AIG to emphasize the broad claims associated with the Fact of Evolution. See “Has Evolution really been observed?” Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/508.asp.
[49]. Peter Gwynne, “The Cooling World,” Newsweek, 28 April 1975, p. 64, http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm.
[50]. Peter Gwynne, “The Cooling World,” Newsweek, 28 April 1975, p. 64, http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm.
[51]. Lawrence Solomon, “Allegre's second thoughts”, Financial Post, 2 March 2007, http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388.
[52]. Lawrence Solomon, “Allegre's second thoughts”, Financial Post, 2 March 2007, http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388.
[53]. Jonathan Marks, What it means to be 98% chimpanzee (Berkeley : University of California Press
[54]. Jonathan Marks, What it means to be 98% chimpanzee (Berkeley : University of California Press
[55]. Michael Crichton, State of Fear (New York
[56]. Jonathan Marks, What it means to be 98% chimpanzee (Berkeley : University of California Press
No comments:
Post a Comment