                                
      Faith and Fact in the Creation-Evolution Controversy
                      by Dr. David N. Menton

                  St. Louis, 1986 (rev. 7-17-92)
      (c) 1992 by the Missouri Association for Creation, Inc.
                                
It  is  said that Isaac Newton once challenged a friend with  the
claim  that  a working model of celestial mechanics  in  his  lab
"just came together by accident".  When his friend declared  this
to  be  nonsense, Newton replied, "you believe the great universe
itself  had  no Creator--why then should this little  model  need
one?"   [because there are known mechanisms for how the universe
came to be, how Earth came to be, and how life came to be. It did
-NOT- "come together by accident" as Christian idiots (Creationists)
claim real scientists claim. -- david rice]


This  was  not  the  beginning of the  creation-evolution
controversy and it certainly was not the end; today the issue  is
being  hotly  contested  in  the  news  media,  the  popular  and
professional  science literature, and even  in  the  courts.   It
would  appear  that  the only place where the  creation-evolution
controversy is not being actively debated is in the public school
science  class rooms.  Here it seems that the scientific evidence
for  purposeful  design in nature recognized by  such  giants  of
science  as  Newton,  Kepler,  Pascal,  Boyle,  Dalton,  Virchow,
Mendel,  Pasteur, Kelvin, Lister, and Fleming, (to  name  a  few)
must not be discussed for fear that any recognition of purposeful
design  in nature implies a Creator and that would not be,  well,
scientific.

There  are  really  only  two fundamentally  different  kinds  of
explanations for the origin of the universe and living things   -
either they were created supernaturally by intelligent design  or
they   arose  by  a  materialistic  evolutionary  process   which
ultimately must depend on chance and the intrinsic properties  of
matter.    Historically  both  explanations   grew   out   of   a
philosophical-religious milieu and it has only been in  the  last
hundred years that adherents of both views have sought to  defend
their beliefs with scientific arguments.  The religious basis  of
creation is well known but one hears less about the religious and
philosophical  basis of evolution.  Many fail  to  recognize  the
religious  foundation  of evolution simply  because  evolutionary
scenarios  generally preclude the concept of God as  a  causative
and  controlling agent in origins.  A religion, however, does not
necessarily  entail  a  belief  in  God.   Buddhism  and  Secular
Humanism  are  two examples of religions that do  not  include  a
concept  of God.  Religion may be simply defined as a world  view
relating  to ones concept of origins, ultimate truth, values  and
their  implication  for  the meaning and  purpose  of  existence.
Whatever suggests a cosmology suggests a religion.

The  ancient  Greek  philosophers  were  perhaps  the  first   to
formulate an essentially evolutionary concept of origins.  In the
fifth  century  BC, Empedocles taught that all of  the  parts  of
living  organisms  were  formed independently  and  were  brought
together   in  random  arrangements.   He  proposed  that   those
combinations  which were not well suited to live perished,  while
the  better  suited combinations survived.  In the third  century
BC, Epicurus taught that the universe is eternal and that nothing
could influence it from without.  The seeds of modern materialism
can  be  seen  in  the Epicurean assumptions that  the  whole  of
existence is made of randomly moving elementary particles  (which
they  called  atoms!) or is void and that sensation is  the  sole
source  of  all  knowledge.   It  was  inevitable,  given   these
assumptions, that Epicurus would conclude that the physical world
is  a  result  of fortuitous combinations of atoms.  Perhaps  the
most  insightful account of the role of evolutionary concepts  in
Epicurean  philosophy  is  found in Lucretius'  De  Rerum  Natura
written  in the first century BC.  Here Lucretius came remarkably
close  to  Darwin's  tautologous axiom of the  "survival  of  the
fittest."  Like Darwin, Lucretius was not an experimentalist  but
rather attempted to satisfy a deep philosophical need for a self-
assembling  cosmos  without a sovereign creator.  For  Lucretius,
evolutionary  materialism was an attempt to emancipate  men  from
two  great fears - the fear of the arbitrary interference of  the
gods  in the affairs of men, and the fear of accountability after
death (Bennett 1946).


What Do Evolutionists Believe:

Any  rational  discussion of evolution is made difficult  by  the
great  confusion  that  attends the word "evolution."   Evolution
etymologically means "unfolding," and is today typically  equated
with  all manner of "change," whether by chance or design.   Thus
not  only  is  the putative origin of all living  organisms  from
inanimate   matter   by  random  change  and  natural   selection
considered to be evolution, but we also hear of such examples  as
the  "evolution" of flight from the Wright brothers to the  space
shuttle.   In  the  famous Scopes "monkey  trial"  of  1925,  the
lawyers  representing John Scopes even attempted  to  defend  the
scientific  integrity of evolution by equating it with embryology
and aging
     
     The  embryo  becomes a human being  when  it  is  born.
     Evolution  never stops from the beginning  of  the  one
     cell until the human being returns in death to lifeless
     dust.   We  wish  to  set before you evidence  of  this
     character  in  order to stress the  importance  of  the
     theory of evolution. (Anonymous 1925)
     
One  can expect this sort of confusion on scientific matters from
lawyers  perhaps, but even Dr. Maynard Metcalf, a zoologist  from
Johns  Hopkins University, stated in his expert testimony at  the
Scopes trial that he had "always been particularly interested  in
the   evolution  of  the  individual  organism  from  the   egg."
(Anonymous  1925).  The famous evolutionist, Julian Huxley,  came
much  closer to the ordinary cosmological sense of the word  when
he defined evolution as:
     
     a  directional  and  essentially  irreversible  process
     occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an
     increase  of variety and an increasingly high level  of
     organization in its products -- The whole of reality is
     evolution    --    a    single    process    of    self
     transformation.(Huxley 1955)
     
Since  to  the evolutionist, "the whole of reality is evolution",
it  should  come as no surprise that most consider  it  to  be  a
"fact",  not a theory.  The evolutionist Richard Goldschmidt  put
it  this  way,  Evolution  of  the  animal  and  plant  world  is
considered  by all those entitled to judgment to be  a  fact  for
which   no   further   proof   is  needed   (Goldschmidt   1952).
Interestingly,  Goldschmidt's own ideas of how  evolution  occurs
were rejected as outrageous by most other evolutionists, but  few
evolutionists  ever allow themselves to ask if evolution  occurs.
Indeed, given the confusing and eclectic definitions of evolution
the  question of whether evolution occurs at all makes  no  sense
unless  we  define the term to specify that process by which  the
cosmos  and  it's living inhabitants are believed to have  arisen
from  atomic particles over time by process involving only chance
and  the  intrinsic properties of matter and energy.  Many  would
argue that even this more limited definition of evolution is  too
broad to allow rational discussion.

There  are  many different and sometimes conflicting explanations
of  evolution.   There  must, for example,  be  rather  different
explanations  for evolution among genetically reproducing  living
organisms than for the evolution of the earth, stars and planets.
Even   in  biological  evolution  there  is  controversy  between
"neutralists"  and "selectionists" and between "gradualists"  and
"saltationists."  Some evolutionists are quite certain that  life
evolved on earth about 4 billion years ago while others, such  as
Nobel laureate Francis Crick, are equally certain that life could
not  have  evolved on earth at all but rather arrived here  ready
made from somewhere else in the universe (Crick 1981).  Some even
declare  that the origin of life has nothing whatever to do  with
evolution!   In  the  famous  Arkansas  creation-evolution  trial
(McLean  vs. Arkansas) Judge William Overton ruled, on the  basis
of  testimony  by  evolutionists, that "the scientific  community
does  not consider origins of life a part of evolutionary theory.
The theory of evolution assumes the existence of life -" (Geisler
1982).

Even  such  long repudiated concepts as Lamark's "inheritance  of
acquired characteristics", Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" theory
and  occult  forces  are once again being  proposed  by  some  as
possible   mechanisms  of  evolution.   There  are   even   major
differences  of opinion on observations as well as  speculations!
Some  evolutionists,  for example, insist that  those  critically
important transitional organisms that ought to show us  at  least
some  of the major stages of evolution do in fact occur in  great
abundance  in the fossil record while other evolutionists  insist
that  transitional stages are not only virtually  absent  in  the
fossil  record but one shouldn't even expect to find  them!   The
list could be greatly lengthened, but still it would not mitigate
the fact that there remains a common bond of faith among all true
evolutionists in the efficacy of time and chance in producing the
progressive  evolution  of  the cosmos,  they  concede  only  the
mechanism  is  in doubt.  In like manner, all the differences  of
opinion  among true creationists regarding the time for creation,
the  age of the earth, the identity of the creator and the  order
of  creation  still leave intact their central  belief  that  the
cosmos  shows  overwhelming evidence of purposeful  design  by  a
Creator, again only the actual mechanism is unknown.

The  courts have thus far wisely avoided trying to judge  whether
either creation or evolution is true or not but rather have  only
attempted to determine if creation is "scientific."  In theMcLean
v. Arkansas case, Federal Judge Overton decided that creation "is
not    scientific   because   it   depends   upon    supernatural
intervention"(Geisler 1982).  Evolution, on the other  hand,  was
judged to be "scientific" because it does not claim to depend  on
supernatural intervention.  This important difference  should  be
carefully  considered  by  those  who  prefer  to  believe   that
evolution is "God's way of creating."  The problem with  equating
science  with  mere materialism, however, is  that  it  seems  to
confer   scientific  legitimacy  on  any  speculation  or   faith
regarding  origins,  no matter how unsupported  it  might  be  by
empirical  evidence,  as  long  as  this  speculation  is  purely
materialistic in nature.  Thus when scientists speculate  without
evidence  that immensely complex living cells arose on  earth  by
chance  and  the intrinsic properties of matter, it is considered
"science",  but  if scientists speculate that living  cells  were
designed  by  an intelligent creator it is not considered  to  be
"science".   There  must obviously be more to true  science  than
materialistic speculations and scenarios.

Science  is  a way of using our physical senses in an  effort  to
understand  the world as it exists.  Three basic requirements  of
empirical  science are that the object or phenomenon under  study
be:  1)  observable, 2) repeatable and finally 3) any  hypothesis
which  seeks  to  explain these observations  must  be  at  least
potentially refutable.  By these standards, neither evolution nor
creation  can be considered a scientific explanation of  origins.
There  were, after all, no human observers of the origin of  life
or  the  origin  of  any living organism, nor are  these  origins
repeatable today.  Neither evolution nor creation qualifies as  a
scientific theory because no one has been able to conceive  of  a
critical experiment that is capable of disproving either of them.
The  evolutionists Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Birch have  pointed  out
that:
     
     our  theory of evolution has become -- one which cannot
     be  refuted by any possible observations.  It  is  thus
     outside  of  empirical  science,  but  not  necessarily
     false.   No one can think of ways in which to test  it.
     (Ehrlich and Birch 1967)
     
With  rather remarkable candor, these authors frankly admit  that
evolutionary  ideas   "have become part of an evolutionary  dogma
accepted by most of us as part of our training."

The  failure of both creation and evolution to meet the standards
of a scientific hypothesis or theory has led some to suggest that
they be considered as models of origin rather than theories.   As
such,  both  models can be compared for their compatibility  with
the  scientific  evidence. Creationists and  evolutionists  must,
after  all,  deal with the same material evidence even  if  their
different starting assumptions often lead them to quite different
conclusions.  Few people, unfortunately, have had the opportunity
to  compare  both models with the evidence because  usually  only
evolution  is presented in our schools, books, magazines,  nature
films  and  the  news media, and then often  in  a  dogmatic  and
uncritical  way.  How many of us, for example, were  taught  that
humans  and other mammals develop "gill slits" in the  course  of
their   embryological   development   and   that   this   is    a
"recapitulation  of our phylogeny" presumably "proving"  that  we
evolved  from  gill  breathing aquatic forms?   In  fact,  it  is
universally recognized by embryologists that neither "gills"  nor
"slits" are found in the so called "branchial" (gill!) region  of
mammalian embryos.  The whole idea of "recapitulation" was  shown
to  be unsound in the early 1800's when it was first proposed  by
Ernst  Haeckel.  The embryologist, Jane Oppenheimer has  lamented
that "the work of Haeckel was the culmination of the extremes  of
exaggeration  which  followed Darwin"  and  that  this  mind  set
significantly  delayed  the progress in  embryology  (Oppenheimer
1967).   Why  then, is this intellectually barren  concept  still
taught  in  many  biology  textbooks as evidence  for  evolution?
Recently  8  biology  text books out of 15 being  considered  for
adoption  in  biology  classes by  the  Indiana  State  Board  of
Education  were  found to mention "gill slits"  as  evidence  for
"recapitulation" and evolution.  In discussing the recapitulation
myth,  the  evolutionists  Ehrlich  and  Holm  noted  that  "it's
shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out  by  modern
authors,  but the idea still has a prominent place in  biological
mythology." (Ehrlich and Holm 1963)
      
      
What Do Creationists Believe?:
                                
Creationists believe that the organisms we see on earth today, as
well  as the extinct organisms in the fossil record, were created
in  their  original form by a mechanism of purposeful design  and
could  not  have come into being by mere chance and the intrinsic
properties of matter and energy.  Creationists recognize  limited
variation  among plants and animals and assume that a species  as
it  exists  today  may not be identical in all respects  to  it's
original  ancestor.   It  is  quite  clear,  for  example,   that
considerable variation can occur within a species such as we  see
among the 150 varieties of dogs recognized by the American Kennel
Club.   It  is also clear that some of these variants may  become
reproductively isolated from one another as in the case  of  a  2
lb.  Chihuahua  and a 150 lb. St. Bernard.  None the  less,  dogs
appear  to  have remained dogs and the immense variation  we  see
among  them  only  reflects selection among  the  alleles  of  an
existing  gene  pool of the species Canis familiaris.   Selection
for any particular trait will, therefore, have real limits as  is
recognized  by  all  plant  and animal breeders.   Darwin,  being
unaware  of the actual genetic mechanism involved, envisioned  no
such  limitation on variation as he clearly stated in  the  first
edition of his "Origin of Species":
     
     I  can  see  no  difficulty in a race  of  bears  being
     rendered,  by natural selection, more and more  aquatic
     in  their habitats, with larger and larger mouths, till
     a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.
     
Evolutionists  persist  in referring to  the  observed  variation
within   a   species   as   "microevolution",   suggesting   that
macroevolution   (the   formation  of   fundamentally   different
organisms)  is  merely microevolution writ large.   Creationists,
and  indeed many evolutionists,  argue that variations  within  a
species  are  not  really  "micro-evolutionary"  changes  at  all
because  there  is no known relationship between these  kinds  of
changes   and   putative   macro-evolution.    Reporting   on   a
Macroevolution  Conference held at the Field  Museum  of  Natural
History in 1980, Roger Lewin wrote:
     
     The  central  question  of the Chicago  Conference  was
     whether  the  mechanisms  of  microevolution  could  be
     extrapolated    to    explain   the    phenomenon    of
     macroevolution.   At the expense of doing  violence  to
     the positions of some people at the meeting, the answer
     can be given as a clear No. (Lewin 1980)
     
Never the less, almost every high school and college biology text
book  uses the same classic example of microevolution, industrial
melanism   in   the  peppered  moth,  as  implied  evidence   for
macroevolution.   The  peppered moth,  Biston  betularia,  varies
widely  in it's degree of pigmentation.  In the 1950s, Kittlewell
provided the first experimental evidence for natural selection by
counting  the  relative number of dark and light  peppered  moths
eaten by birds in forests darkened by industrial pollution and in
unpolluted  forests.  Not surprisingly, birds were shown  to  eat
more  light  moths resting on dark trees and more dark  moths  on
light  trees.   Industrial melanism in  the  peppered  moth  does
indeed  provide  an  obvious example  of  natural  selection  for
pigment  variation in the peppered moth but it tells  us  nothing
about  how  these  or any other moths evolved, or  even  if  they
evolved, from non-moth ancestors.  The empirical evidence  simply
shows  that variant "versions" of genes (alleles) exist  in  this
species  which influence how dark or light the moth will  be  and
that one can indeed select for relatively darker or lighter moths
(the  same  thing  could be said of humans).  Creationists  would
point out that there is virtually no empirical evidence that dogs
and  moths  or  even dogs and cats share a common ancestor.   The
important  question then is not how does nature select among  the
existing  homologous genes of a species but rather, how might  an
organism develop new unprecedented genes and how likely are these
new genes to be helpful, rather than harmful, to the organism  in
its reproduction and survival?

Evolutionists must look to mutations as a source of genuinely new
genetic  information and hence evolution.  Creationists,  on  the
other  hand,  see  mutations  as  degenerative  in  effect.   The
evolutionist H. J. Muller, who won the Nobel prize for  his  work
on mutations, said in this regard:
     
     It  is  entirely in line with the accidental nature  of
     mutations  that extensive tests have agreed in  showing
     the  vast  majority of them detrimental to the organism
     in  its  job of surviving and reproducing -- good  ones
     are so rare we can consider them all bad. (Muller 1955)
     
Evolutionists assume, none the less, that all of the genes of  an
organism   are  a  collective  result  of  countless   fortuitous
mutations.  Creationists, on the other hand, point out that  many
such  changes  are known to be responsible for cancer  and  other
disorders  and  have  rarely if ever  proven  to  be  beneficial.
Moreover, it has been shown that the very survival of all  living
organisms  depends on the efficient operation of  a  complex  DNA
repair  mechanism  in  the  cell  which  greatly  minimizes   the
incidence  of  mutations.   Even  if  the  intrinsic  stabilizing
factors  of a cell are overcome, any new proteins formed may  not
be  "recognized"  by the cell and thus are subject  to  automatic
degradation   within  the  cell.   Clearly  the  faith   of   the
evolutionist  in  the  beneficial  and  constructive  nature   of
mutations greatly exceeds that of the creationist.


Chance vs. Design:

The  most  often sighted argument in support of creation  is  the
evidence  for  design  in  biological  systems.   It  should   be
emphasized  that the word design does not simply mean  order  but
also  implies  purposeful intent.  Most people find the  evidence
for  design in nature intuitive and obvious.  Up until  at  least
this century, most of the great men and women who laid the ground
work  for  all  branches of modern science perceived  in  nature,
overwhelming  evidence  for a designed and  purposeful  creation.
Beginning  with the latter half of the 19th century, however,  it
has  become  increasingly  more common  for  scientists  to  deny
apriori  virtually any evidence for purposeful design  in  nature
because  they  believe that such a conclusion is "religious"  and
not  "scientific."   In  1750 Pierre Louis Moreau  de  Maupertuis
published  his  "Essaie de Cosmologie" in which he  attempted  to
refute  the  argument for the existence of God from the  manifest
evidence  of  design  in  nature, by  proposing  an  evolutionary
scenario involving chance and "blind destiny".  Maupertuis' ideas
anticipated the principles of "survival of the fittest" 100 years
before Darwin!
     
     Chance  one  might  say, turned out a  vast  number  of
     individuals; a small proportion of these were organized
     in  such a manner that the animals organs could satisfy
     their  needs.   A  much greater number  showed  neither
     adaptation nor order;  These last have all perished  --
     Thus  the  species which we see today are but  a  small
     part of all those that a blind destiny has produced.
     
The  denial  of purposeful design in favor of "blind chance"  has
been  a  distinguishing feature of evolutionism up to the present
day.   The  outspoken  evolutionary apologist  Julian  Huxley  is
emphatic  in  his  denial  of  design  in  nature,  likening  the
evolutionary process to a "chaotic jazz dance" of molecules:
     
     Nowhere  in all its vast extent is there any  trace  of
     purpose,  or even of prospective significance.   It  is
     impelled  from  behind  by  blind  physical  forces,  a
     gigantic   chaotic   jazz  dance   of   particles   and
     radiations, in which the only over-all tendency we have
     so  far  been able to detect is that summarized by  the
     second  Law  of thermodynamics -- the tendency  to  run
     down (Huxley 1953)
     
There are some notable exceptions among modern scientists to this
materialistic  and  atheistic trend in our time.   The  late  Dr.
Wernher  Von  Braun,  father  and chief  architect  of  America's
spectacularly successful space program, was both one of the  most
distinguished  scientists of our century and a firm  believer  in
the evidence for intelligent design in the cosmos.  Dr. Von Braun
said:
     
     While the admission of design does ultimately raise the
     question of a designer, the scientific method does  not
     allow us to exclude data simply because it leads  to  a
     conclusion that life and living organisms are based  on
     design.  To insist that science requires everything  in
     the  universe  to have evolved by chance  violates  the
     very   objectivity   of   science   itself.    (private
     correspondence)
     
We  usually  have  no trouble detecting evidence for  intelligent
design  in  a structure, even if we do not know it's  builder  or
purpose.  Stonehenge, for example, is a prehistoric structure  in
England  which consists of a large circular arrangement  of  huge
stones  whose relative positions seem to be related to the  point
of the midsummer sunrise.  We do not know who built this majestic
structure  nor  are we certain of its function but nobody  doubts
that  it was designed and built by intelligent beings.  Why  then
do  so many people today refuse to recognize purposeful design in
infinitely more complex structures such as the eye or even a bird
feather?

Interestingly, any evidence for design in a structure of  unknown
origin,  be  it  Stonehenge or a biological  organ,  really  must
depend in large part on essentially negative arguments.  We would
argue,  for example, that complex and integrated machines  simply
do not arise spontaneously in nature, moreover, if such a complex
and  integrated  structure were somehow to exist it  would,  with
time,  inevitably  decay  to  a vastly  more  probable  and  less
organized  state. These kinds of arguments are  embodied  in  the
scientific laws of probability and thermodynamics.  Thus  even  a
simple  arrowhead  or stone tool is easily distinguished  from  a
piece  of flint or rock that only happens to look like a designed
artifact  because  in the latter case, the surface  relief  could
only  result  from naturally existing lines of  cleavage  in  the
grain  of  the rock following the most probable path, whereas  in
designed  and  worked  rock,  the  cleavage  will  often   follow
improbable   planes.   It  is  indeed  ironic  that  a   physical
anthropologist can be completely confident that a crude appearing
rock  is  a stone tool, designed and crafted by a sapient  (wise)
man and yet attribute the origin of the unfathomably complex body
of  Homo sapiens himself to the natural properties of matter  and
energy over time!  Even the mere stone facade of Homo sapiens  on
Mount  Rushmore could easily be identified as a designed artifact
solely  on  the  basis of the improbable cleavage plains  in  its
granite.   We  may be certain that given enough time,  weathering
and  geophysical events will destroy the facade on Mount Rushmore
- not add another president!


The Law of Probability:

According to the mathematician E. Borel (Borel 1965), the law  of
probability  simply states that "events whose  probabilities  are
extremely  small never occur."  This intuitive but mathematically
precise  law  forms the statistical basis on which all  empirical
science  rests.   A simple calculation shows we could  expect  to
succeed  in  randomly arranging the letters of  the  alphabet  to
spell the phrase "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION" approximately once  in
8  hundred  million, trillion, trillion tries.  If we make  these
tries  at  the  rate  of a billion a second we  could  expect  to
succeed once in 26 thousand trillion years!  But even this highly
improbable  event  is  a  virtual  certainty  compared   to   the
probability  of  the chance formation of one biologically  useful
protein, to say nothing of the origin of life.

The  cyberneticist Hubert Yockey has calculated on the  basis  of
information  theory that the longest piece of DNA that  might  be
expected to form by chance during a billion years would code  for
only  49  amino acids (Yockey 1977).  It has been estimated  that
the  simplest  imaginable organism capable of reproducing  itself
would  require at least 125 different kinds of proteins averaging
about  400  amino acids in length.  The distinguished cosmologist
and  astronomer,  Sir  Fred Hoyle, in a  recent  address  at  the
Kellogg  Radiation  Laboratory (Hoyle  1981),  commented  on  the
probability  of the chance origin of a higher form of  life.   He
estimated that the information content in such an organism  would
be  about 1040,000 - representing the specificity with which 2000
genes, each chosen from about 1020 nucleotide sequences, might be
defined.   Hoyle  estimated that it would require several  Hubble
times to yield this result by chance.  He likened the probability
of  higher forms of life evolving in this way to the chance  that
"a  tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a  Boeing
747  from  the materials therein."  Hoyle, a former atheist,  has
reluctantly  concluded  that deliberate  design  is  a  far  more
rational  explanation for the origin of life  than  evolution  by
chance  and  says  that he is at a loss to understand  biologists
widespread compulsion to deny what seems to him to be obvious.

Evolutionists  typically respond to the probability  argument  in
three  ways.   First  they  insist  that  natural  selection   or
"selective  pressure" makes the extreme improbabilities  we  have
discussed  more  probable.   Natural  selection  by  differential
reproduction, however, is meaningless until there is a functional
genetic  mechanism in a living cell and even  then  it  can  only
"select"  that  which  the genome provides in  it's  germ  cells.
Another  defense  of evolution by chance is that  this  extremely
improbable  event  is  made  probable  by  the  great  amount  of
available  time.   The  science  philosopher  Karl  Popper  warns
however;
     
     If  our high probabilities are merely low probabilities
     which have become high because of the immensity of  the
     available  time, then we must not forget that  in  this
     way  it  is  possible  to 'explain' almost  everything.
     (Popper 1976)
     
Finally, evolutionists occasionally argue that the whole question
of probability is irrelevant because evolution is utterly without
purpose and so isn't really trying to make anything.  In a recent
lecture at Washington University in St. Louis, Steven Jay  Gould,
said  "evolution  isn't  a  correct,  perfect  set  pattern,  but
something  that  just happens."  The fact of the matter  is  that
nature  literally teems with "correct, perfect set patterns"  and
it  takes  an immense amount of faith to believe that they  "just
happen."

Thermodynamics:

The  second law of thermodynamics comes up quite often in debates
between  creationists and evolutionists and serves to  illustrate
how the two sides are at variance over the interpretation of even
one  of  the  most fundamental laws of science.  The  theoretical
basis  of the second law was originally developed in relation  to
classical heat mechanics but, in it's practical sense, it has had
wide  applicability to areas as diverse as chemical kinetics  and
information theory.  The evolutionist Harold Blum summed  up  the
second law quite simply;
     
     All  real  processes tend to go toward a  condition  of
     greater probability -- The second law of thermodynamics
     predicts  that  a system left to itself  will,  in  the
     course of time, go toward greater disorder(Blum 1968)
     
We  will recall, however, that the evolutionist Julian Huxley has
defined evolution as a process that "gives rise to an increase of
variety  and an increasingly high level of organization  of  it's
products  (Huxley  1955)."  Creationists understandably  conclude
that the evolution model appears to be entirely inconsistent with
the  second  law of thermodynamics. Evolutionists, on  the  other
hand,  argue  that evolution is consistent with  the  second  law
because  the  earth is an open system receiving energy  from  the
sun.   Somehow, they insist, this energy from the sun  allows  an
immense  increase in order and complexity to occur by  chance  on
earth.  Energy alone, however, is simply inadequate to create the
order required, indeed, it is far more likely to create disorder.
We  could  add  all  the energy we want to  a  pile  of  building
materials  and still not get a building unless we add intelligent
design, a program and machines.  This is true of living organisms
as  well.  An acorn grows into an oak tree not merely because  of
sunshine,  but rather the energy of the sun is utilized  together
with  the  aid  of  extraordinarily complex genetic  information,
programs  and "machines" built into the seed itself.  Finally,  a
point  often overlooked is that the universe itself is  a  closed
system, and thus the evolutionist must deny the second law  on  a
very  large scale or insist, without evidence, that the  original
"cosmic"  egg  which initiated the "big bang" held  within  it  a
vastly  higher level of order and complexity than now  exists  in
the   cosmos!    Lord  Kelvin,  who  contributed  much   to   our
understanding of the second law, said that "the only contribution
of  dynamics  to  theoretical biology  is  absolute  negation  of
automatic  commencement or automatic maintenance of life  (Kelvin
1889)."
      
      
The Fossil Record:

Since both creation and evolution are presumed by their adherents
to  have occurred mainly or entirely in the distant past,  before
there were any human observers, we might expect that the best, if
not the only historical evidence in support of either model would
be  found  in the fossil record.  Most creationists believe  that
nearly all fossils were formed over a relatively short period  of
time  during  and  after a world wide Flood and thus  the  fossil
record  reveals organisms that were contemporary.  Evolutionists,
on  the  other  hand,  believe  that  fossilized  organisms  were
gradually deposited in sediment over millions of years  and  thus
give  us  a  visual  record of at least some  of  the  stages  of
evolution  from the first simple organisms to the  most  complex.
These  beliefs are sufficiently different that it should be quite
easy to determine which is more consistent with the fossil record
as  it appears today.  To be consistent with the evolution model,
the  fossil  record should show how organisms slowly  transformed
one  into  another through countless intermediate or transitional
stages.  Evolutionists claim that over one hundred million  years
were  required  for  the  transformation  of  invertebrates  into
vertebrates  and  thus it is reasonable, if  not  imperative,  to
expect  that  there  would be at least some hint  of  progressive
stages  in the fossil record of this unambiguous and large  scale
transformation.  To be consistent with the creation model, on the
other hand, the fossil record should show no obvious transitional
stages  between distinctly different organisms, but  rather  each
organism   should   appear  all  at  once   and   fully   formed.
Specifically, creationists would argue that there  should  be  no
trace of transitional forms between invertebrates and vertebrates
because no such transformation has ever occurred.

It  is  now  a  generally recognized fact that the fossil  record
shows   few   if   any   organisms  that  represent   unambiguous
intermediate stages in the evolution of any organism of one taxon
into  an organism of a different taxon.  The paleontologist David
B. Kitts has said;
     
     Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a
     means  of seeing evolution, it has presented some nasty
     difficulties  for evolutionists, the most notorious  of
     which  is the presence of gaps in the fossil record  --
     Evolution  requires intermediate forms between  species
     and paleontology does not provide them. (Kitts 1974)
     
Evolutionists  have  been aware of these  missing  intermediates,
often  referred to as "missing links", since the time  of  Darwin
and  have tried to dismiss this critical problem by appealing  to
the   "imperfection"  of  the  fossil  record.  David   Raup,   a
paleontologist at the Field Museum of Natural History, holds  out
no  such hope and insists that, if any thing, the growth  in  our
knowledge of the fossil record since Darwin's time provides  even
less support for evolutionary transformations:
     
     Darwin was embarrassed by the fossil record because  it
     didn't  look the way he predicted it would -- different
     species  usually appear and disappear from  the  record
     without  showing the transitions that Darwin postulated
     --  we  are  now about 120 years after Darwin  and  the
     knowledge  of  the  fossil  record  has  been   greatly
     expanded.   We  now have a quarter of a million  fossil
     species  but the situation hasn't changed  much  --  We
     have 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 a  result  of
     more detailed information. (Raup 1979)
     
Some  evolutionists have tried to explain this  problem  away  by
arguing  that  the  absence of transitional forms  is  simply  an
"artifact"  of classification, while others argue that  the  gaps
only occur at the higher taxonomic levels, and still others argue
that  the  gaps  only  occur at the lower taxonomic  levels.  The
distinguished  evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson has  conceded,
however,  that  the gaps are a consistent feature  of  the  whole
taxonomic spectrum:
     
     --  every  paleontologist knows, that most new species,
     genera,  and  families, and that nearly all  categories
     above  the  level  of  families appear  in  the  record
     suddenly  and  are  not led up to  by  known,  gradual,
     completely continuous transitional sequences.  (Simpson
     1953)
     
     
     This  regular  absence  of transitional  forms  is  not
     confined   to  mammals,  but  is  an  almost  universal
     phenomenon,  as has long been noted by paleontologists.
     It  is  true  of  almost all orders of all  classes  of
     animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate.  A fortiori,
     it is also true of the classes, and of the major animal
     phyla. (Simpson 1944)
     
Speaking   of   the   highest  level  of  animal  classification,
evolutionist Phillip Handler claims that:
     
     Some 25 major phyla are recognized for all the animals,
     and  in  virtually not a single case  is  there  fossil
     evidence to demonstrate what the common ancestry of any
     two phyla looked like. (Handler 1970)
     
At  the lowest level of taxonomic classification, the problem  is
apparently  much  the  same; evolutionist  Steven  J.  Gould  has
pointed  out  that "In any local area, a species does  not  arise
gradually  by  the  steady transformation of  its  ancestors;  it
appears all at once and fully formed." (Gould 1977a)
      
Some  evolutionist still insist that there are  at  least  a  few
examples  of truly transitional forms in the fossil record  while
others  insist  that  even  though  the  fossils  may  not   show
structural   evidence  of  evolution,  there  may  be   evolution
occurring  at the physiological level which of course  leaves  no
fossil  evidence.  A growing number of paleontologists,  however,
are  simply  dismissing  the whole idea that  the  fossil  record
provides   any   evidence   of  major  morphological   evolution.
Evolutionist  Steven  M. Stanley expressed  the  problem  in  the
simplest and bluntest of terms when he delclared that "the  known
fossil  record  fails  to document a single example  of  phyletic
evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition-  (Stanley
1975)."   In commenting on the absence of transitional  sequences
in  the  fossil  record the evolutionist George  Gaylord  Simpson
admitted  that  "their  absence is so nearly  universal  that  it
cannot,  off  hand, be imputed to chance, and does  require  some
attempt  at  special  explanation. (Simpson  1953)"   There  have
indeed  been many attempts at "special explanation"  but  it  all
gets  rather  confusing and the story seems to  change  with  the
telling  and the audience.  For example, in his testimony  before
Judge  Overton in the recent Arkansas trial, Steven Jay Gould  is
reported  to have said that "the theory of evolution is supported
by  a  rather well formed sequence of intermediate stages" (Gould
1981)  yet  in his regular column in Natural History magazine  he
seems to imply that just the opposite is true!
     
     All   paleontologists  know  that  the  fossil   record
     contains  precious  little in the way  of  intermediate
     forms. (Gould 1977b)
     
     
     The  extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil
     record  persists  as the trade secret of  paleontology.
     (Gould 1977a)
     
It  is important to point out that despite the "missing links" in
the fossil record few evolutionists have abandoned their faith in
the  so  called  "fact"  of evolution.   Oxford  zoologist,  Mark
Ridley, defiantly declared:
     
     If  the  creationists  want to  impress  the  Darwinian
     establishment, it will be no use prating on about  what
     the   fossils  say.   No  good  Darwinians  belief   in
     evolution  stands  on the fossil evidence  for  gradual
     evolution,  so nor will his belief fall by it.  (Ridley
     1981)
     
Still, evolutionists can not afford to entirely turn their  backs
on  what  is virtually the only physical historical evidence  for
the  prehistory  of  our flora and fauna.  Ad  hoc  theories  and
scenarios  have been proposed in an effort to come to grips  with
the  lack  of  fossil  evidence which  would  support  evolution.
Stephen   J.   Gould  and  Niles  Eldridge,  for  example,   have
resurrected a long discredited evolutionary scenario  called  the
"hopeful   monster  theory"  and  have  renamed  it   "punctuated
equilibrium."   This  "theory" speculates that  the  much  sought
after intermediate stages in the evolution of organisms do not in
fact  appear  in  the fossil record because these  "transitional"
organisms  (hopeful monsters) were relatively  unstable  and,  as
luck  would  have  it, quickly evolved into stable  species  that
produced  many  offspring and thus many discrete  and  unchanging
fossils.  Some think that this idea is "monstrously hopeful"  and
that it really only attempts to account for missing evidence. The
writer  G.  K.  Chesterton has wisely noted that the evolutionist
"seems  to know everything about the missing link except that  it
is missing."

Creationists  have  not  found it necessary  to  develop  ad  hoc
hypotheses to remain consistent with the fossil record.  Most  of
the animals and plants living today have been found in the fossil
record  in  essentially  their present  form  and  without  known
"primitive" ancestors.  There are of course, a substantial number
of organisms in the fossil record that have unquestionably become
extinct,  a  process  that  regrettably  continues  today.   This
ongoing  process of extinction, however, does not  appear  to  be
counteracted  by the production of new kinds of  organisms.   The
only   encouraging  fact  to  have  emerged  thus  far  is   that
occasionally fossil forms which were thought to have been extinct
for millions of years turn up very much alive in the contemporary
biosphere.  One such "living fossil", the coelacanth, was assumed
on  the basis of fossil evidence to have been extinct for seventy
million years! Ironically, many such living fossils have actually
been  used to "date" the rock strata of the geological column  in
which they were found.

Evolutionists  make much of the sequence in which fossils  appear
in  the  layers of sedimentary rock that form much of the earth's
crust.  There is a tendency for simpler marine organisms such  as
trilobites to occur in the lower strata while the fossils of more
complex organisms tend to occur in more superficial strata of the
geological column.  This has been taken to show that, despite the
missing transitional stages, there is at least a general sequence
from  simple to complex and that this in turn tells us  something
about the age of the strata.  It is a well known fact of geology,
however,  that the layers of the geological column do not  always
appear  in  the order evolutionists expect.  In every mountainous
region of every continent there are examples of supposedly  "old"
strata  containing  simple organisms resting on  top  of  "young"
strata  containing  more complex organisms.  Since  evolutionists
use  their model to interpret the fossil record, they are obliged
to  dismiss  virtually all of these "out of order"  sequences  as
being a result of the lower (older) layers sliding over the upper
(younger)  layers of the earth's crust. In many of these  out  of
order  areas, however, there is no compelling geological evidence
for  such  overthrusting.  In the so called Lewis  overthrust  in
Glacier  National Park, pre- Cambrian limestone, assumed  on  the
basis  of  its fossils to be over a billion years old,  rests  in
apparent conformity upon Cretaceous shale beds, assumed by fossil
evidence to be 135 million years old.  The "thrust block" of  the
Lewis  overthrust has been estimated to be 350 miles wide  and  6
miles  thick  with  a presumed displacement of  35-40  miles  and
estimated  to  weigh about eight hundred thousand  billion  tons!
There is no known geophysical mechanism that can produce such  an
overthrust with out destroying or at least extensively distorting
the  thrust  block  itself  and yet there  is  remarkably  little
evidence of even breccia or rubble in the putative fault plane.
     
     Such  a  slab moving over ground as is now believed  to
     have  existed should have scarred and broken the  hills
     and  have  itself  been broken to  a  greater  or  less
     extent, depending on local conditions.  No evidence  of
     either of these things has been found. (Ross and  Rezak
     1959)
     
Incredibly,  one  of  the guide books to  Glacier  National  Park
states  that "the lack of distortion of the rocks makes  this  an
excellent example of an overthrust that is often used in  biology
textbooks."   One thing is quite clear, if the fossils  were  not
"out  of  order",  no one would have suspected an  overthrust  in
Glacier.   The evolutionist, however, must not allow  himself  to
even  consider the possibility that these layers are actually  in
the  order that they were deposited - to do so would mean to call
into  question not only the whole theory of evolution but finally
a whole world view and belief system.

Conclusion:
                                
Most  of us would like to believe that we bring a completely open
and  unbiased mind to the issue of origins.  We prefer  to  think
that  we  harbor no unprovable starting assumptions, and that  we
would  not hesitate to abandon even our most fundamental  beliefs
about  origins  if the facts were to require it.   There  may  be
certain individuals and even certain fields of science where this
blissful neutrality prevails but it is most unlikely when we deal
with the question of our origins.  Here the facts are too few and
the  philosophical stakes are too high.  Whether one believes  in
creation   or   evolution   the   philosophical   and   religious
implications  are  profound.  Creation is the  very  foundational
assumption of the Judeo-Christian religion and evolution  is  the
foundational assumption of religions such as atheism, agnosticism
and  secular  humanism.  Creation implies that man is  ultimately
accountable  to  the Creator and evolution implies  that  man  is
ultimately accountable to no one save himself.

It  seems almost inevitable that beliefs about origins will  tend
to  polarize people in two camps with each quite certain that the
other  is dead wrong.  Everything seems to hinge on the existence
of  the Creator.  If we assume there is a Creator, the origins of
complex  and  highly integrated biological systems by intelligent
design  is  completely  reasonable and hardly  incompatible  with
science.   If,  however, we assume there is no  creator,  nothing
conceivable in nature could be taken as evidence for  design  and
origins by chance and the intrinsic properties of nature  is  the
only  alternative open to us no matter how lacking  the  evidence
may be.  The British biologist D. M. S. Watson said:
     
     Evolution is a theory universally accepted not  because
     it  can be proved by logically coherent evidence to  be
     true   but   because  the  only  alternative,   special
     creation, is clearly incredible. (Watson 1929)
     
Each  of us must decide for ourselves which is more incredible  -
evolution or special creation.
Literature Cited

Anonymous.  The World's Most Famous Court Trial. Cincinnati,  OH:
     National Book Company, 1925.

Bennett,  D.  "On  the  Nature if Things." In On  the  Nature  of
     Things, xi-xxvi. Roslyn, NY: Walter J. Black, 1946.

Blum, Harold. Times Arrow and Evolution. 1968.

Borel,  E.  Elements  of the Theory of Probability.  New  Jersey:
     Prentice-Hall, 1965.

Crick, Francis. Life Itself. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981.

Ehrlich,  Paul  and L. Charles Birch. "Evolutionary  history  and
     population biology." Nature 214 (1967): 352.

Ehrlich,  Paul  and R. W. Holm. In The Process of Evolution,  66.
     1963.

Geisler,  Norman  L. In The Creator in the Courtroom,  175.  Mott
     Media, 1982.

Goldschmidt,  Richard.  "Evolution as viewed by one  geneticist."
     American Scientist 40 (1952): 84.

Gould,  Stephen Jay. "Evolution's erratic pace." Natural History,
     May 1977 1977a, 12-16.

Gould, Stephen Jay. "The return of the hopeful monsters." Natural
     History,  June-July 1977 1977b, 22-30.

Gould, Steven J. The Arkansas Democrat, December 10 1981,

Handler, Phillip. Biology and the Future of Man. New York: Oxford
     Univ. Press, 1970.

Hoyle,  Sir  Fred. "as quoted in 'Hoyle on Evolution'." Nat.  294
     (12 November 1981): 105-106.

Huxley,  Julian.  In  Evolution In Action, 11-12. New  York:  New
     American Library, 1953.

Huxley,  Julian.  "in:." In What Is Man, p. 278.  New  York,  NY:
     Simon & Shuster, 1955.

Kelvin,  W. T. In Popular Lectures and Addresses, p. 415. London:
     Macmillian, 1889.

Kitts, David B. "Paleontology and evolutionary theory." Evolution
     28 (September 1974): 467.

Lewin,  Roger.  "Evolutionary theory under fire." Sci. 210  (4472
     1980): 883-887.

Muller,  H.  J. "How radiation changes the genetic constitution."
     Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11 (1955): 329-337.

Oppenheimer,  Jane.  In Essays in the History of  Embryology  and
     Biology, 150. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1967.

Popper, Karl. Unended Quest. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 1976.

Raup, David M. "Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology." Field
     Museum of Natural History Bulletin,  January 1979 1979, 25.

Ridley, Mark. New Scientist 90 (1981): 830-832.

Ross,  C.  P.  and  R.  Rezak. The Rocks and Fossils  of  Glacier
     National  Park. U. S. Geological Survey, 1959.  Professional
     Paper 294K p. 427.

Simpson,  George  G.  Tempo  and  Mode in  Evolution.  New  York:
     Columbia University Press, 1944.

Simpson,  George  Gaylord. "The Major Features of Evolution."  In
     The  Major  Features of Evolution, 360. New  York:  Columbia
     University Press, 1953.

Stanley,  Steven  M.  "A  theory of evolution above  the  species
     level." Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 72 (1975): 646.

Watson, D. M. S. Nature 123 (1929): 233.

Yockey,   Hubert   P.  "A  calculation  of  the  probability   of
     spontaneous  biogenesis by information  theory."  J.  Theor.
     Biol. 67 (1977): 377-398.

                ***************************************

                  Origins Talk RBBS  *  (314) 821-1078
                          FidoNet  1:100/435
                  Christian Fellowship Net  8:3006/28

                Missouri Association for Creation, Inc.
                       405 North Sappington Road
                   Saint Louis, Missouri  63122-4729
                             (314) 821-1234

