Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...
Yes, Please make this my home page!
Evidences
for
Design
in
Nature
By
Gordon Webb
March 2000
Preface
In
our school system, free speech is considered a paramount right, for students
as well as for teachers. Understandable limits for respect, decency and
timing aside, it is interesting how quickly we limit free speech in matters
of deep import, such as faith or morals.
In class students may learn about and discuss the religious customs
and beliefs of other countries or peoples, but not their own customs and
beliefs. Words like “Christmas”
or “Easter” have been replaced by “winter” and “spring”, and
subjects like prayer or the “Ten Commandments” are excluded from the
classroom. This is done in the
name of “the separation of church and state”, as though this phrase were
derived from the Constitution. Instruction
in “faith” is not the job of public schools, we excuse.
But the exclusion of faith is also a statement of faith. We actually teach “faith” in every subject area,
regardless of our lesson plans or intent.
There is no such thing as “neutral” knowledge.
All of us have a perspective, a bias, which affects what we say, how
we say it, and how students hear it. The
most honest education happens when those perspectives are shared openly,
respectfully, and tolerantly. But
we deceive ourselves when we think, or lead students to think, that there
can be “faith-free” understanding of any fact, principle, or practice.
This
is especially problematic in the science classroom, where students are led
to believe that science has superceded religion (deemed “myth”) in the
pursuit of true knowledge. When
the subject of evolution is taught, invariably there will be those students
whose personal beliefs are affronted and challenged.
When it is not overtly taught, however, evolution is often presumed
as fact or presented as the “scientific” view, as though no faith is
required in its acceptance. When
I was challenged to present evidences for design in nature, my initial
thought was, How can anyone NOT see design in nature?
But “seeing” comes from believing, not only from facts. Nevertheless, I believe there are at least three approaches
that could be taken in responding to the challenge:
1.
Present scientific evidences that controvert or contradict
evolution. Numerous facts may
be cited, and many unfilled gaps explored.
2.
Present a religious alternative, such as “Biblical
Creationism.”
This is unnecessary to the present objective, and inappropriate in the
public school setting, but interested students might be personally
encouraged to pursue such a subject.
3.
Present scientific evidences that demonstrate the viability
and superiority of a design model in explaining the facts of nature.
I
have taken the third approach in this paper, in hopes that the open and
honest presentation of science or any subject will encourage the sharing of
alternative views, the modeling and emulation of critical reasoning, and a
heightening sense of personal responsibility.
Evidences
for Design in Nature
"God has made the universe according to very
beautiful mathematics."
~ Paul
Dirac, physicist
The
recognition of design in nature has been a driving force in the history of
science since before the days of Aristotle, and underpins the concept of
scientific "law" at the most fundamental level of thought. As an
outcome of this inherent design, the behavior of the universe is reasonable,
and its laws can be derived logically and formulated mathematically.
Accounting for design may always have been the defining role of science
in one respect, albeit the evolutionary paradigm has certainly played a major
role in shaping much scientific research and teaching for the past two
centuries. Having had such a
prominent role, however, has secured for the espousers of evolutionism a
position of authority, and an attending boldness which unfortunately overlooks
its own weaknesses and [some would say] fatal flaws.
In honest scientific literature, words like "may",
"suppose", "believe", and "hypothesize"
elucidate the tentativeness of evolution in its many forms; but in most
articles, the tenets of evolution are simply declared in the past tense, as
though there were no doubt of their occurrence.
This has led to a gross misrepresentation of true science, and to the
public's general misunderstanding of what evolutionists really believe.
Misconceptions about evolution abound, and frequently crop up in even
the best-contrived debate formats, making it difficult to clarify key points
of contest. The case for design
has been relegated to the court of "science vs. religion" (or worse,
"intellectuals" vs. "those bigoted creationist fanatics")
when it is really a conflict of paradigms. For centuries the origin and
classification of living things has been the subject of discussion and debate.
My contention is that honest science encourages its students to
consider the evidences for design in nature, and let the chips fall where they
may for whatever theory is being tested.
Order
may be seen everywhere, but nowhere more remarkably than in the realm of
living things. In considering the
evidences for biological design, I propose a model for design that
incorporates, not necessarily exclusively nor in this order of importance:
A.
Fully developed structures and processes
B.
Inherent propagable information
C.
Agreement with natural history
D.
Expendability of uniformitarian assumptions
E.
Distinctiveness of humanity
A
working definition of "biological evolution" must be also agreed
upon. Variation within a population or genome, often called
"microevolution," (speciation, a
la Darwin) is given and not contested.
It will be argued later that natural selection counteracts the
mechanisms of evolution per se.
Phylogeny is the issue. According
to the theory of evolution, all major classes of organisms have descended from
simpler groups, fueled by randomly incurred mutations; accordingly, the first
organism(s) must have been generated by random chemical collisions of
molecules in an assumed pre-biotic soup.
These semantics being acceptable, consider the following bodies of
evidence for design:
A.
Fully developed structures and processes:
Living beings are defined, characterized and identified by the forms and
functions that enable them to adapt to and modify their environment.
These include the most fundamental of processes in the simplest of
bacteria, ranging through all of the orders and phyla of organisms to the
epitome of system complexity, human beings.
In order to explain how such structures and processes could evolve
through countless eons, it must be shown that all intermediate structures or
processes are progressively viable (functional and heritable) in a randomly
altered state. The prevalence of
mutualism in biological systems requires that the accumulation of such
evolving states of viability in all the changing organisms and conditions of a
particular habitat be compatible with each other, lest the natural balance be
upset. This requirement is often referred to as "parallel
evolution". In sexually
reproducing organisms, the altered trait, or mutation, must be fully
compatible with existing genes to support procreation.
It is assumed that a mutation enters the gene pool through an
individual, later to somehow be expressed in the population at large.
While mutated genes would be appropriately termed “junk”, this is a
misnomer when applied to the vast majority of DNA which is yet un-decoded, as
in the human genome. Wherever the
deviation occurs, each progressive mutant must be viable (and fit!) in order
to result in a subsequent evolutionary step, however small. Pleading
"punctuated equilibrium" (that evolution occurs in leaps, a
la S. J. Gould) cannot deny the incremental nature of evolution; although
Gould attempts to excuse the absence of fossil intermediates (to be discussed
later), his explanation is weakest in forcing the chaotic mill of evolution to
grind more quickly. As an illustration, consider the following two-part
statement:
Three fused jawbones of the archetypal reptile
(used as points of muscular attachment for the unique hinging apparatus
of the jaw demonstrated in the ability of many reptilian classes to swallow
prey which are diametrically larger than themselves) evolved into the tiny incus, malleus, and stapes of the
mammalian middle ear (uniquely-hinged bones perfectly jointed to sort and
transmit sound vibrations falling upon the eardrum to the oval window of the
inner ear, where the sorted vibrations are converted to neural impulses.)
While this may be a mouthful of information (pun strictly intended), by the
"rules" of homology such a development must have occurred in the
evolution of mammals (say evolutionists).
Now, by way of analogy, try morphing the first clause of the sentence
letter by letter into the second clause, e.g. the three fused jawbones must
become the three middle ear bones, and the hinging function must become a
hearing function. One could
conceivably program a computer to perform such a letter-by-letter morph, but
to qualify as a truly evolutionary process one must assure that each letter
exchange in the first part be random, and yet result in a viable and
informational clause, leading progressively to its counterpart.
The impossibility of such a morph becomes quickly evident, no matter
how fast the computer; the two clauses were independently constructed, of
course!
While one may argue the analogy to be flawed, the order of magnitude of the
problem in real organisms is certainly much greater; it is beyond currently
posited mechanisms of evolution to account for all (or any?) of the
intermediate forms in such a progression. Yet such chasms of form and function
exist between every major group of organisms, alive or dead.
An easier gap to bridge might be the progression of fish scales to
reptilian scales, or scales to feathers.
Actually these features are deemed analogous (dissimilar designs for a
common function, e.g. the bat's wing compared to a bee's wing), rather than
homologous (e.g. the horse's hoof compared to the eagle's talon).
There is no proposed line of "descent" between these
features, and each is perfectly suited for its respective creature class.
An evolutionary relationship is assumed, but not at all implied by the
anatomical evidence. And what of
the many assumed generations between cetaceans and their alleged dog-like,
terrestrial grandparents? What
type of creature can be envisioned with the required transitional traits?
Pinnipeds have been excluded (by evolutionists)... too many
dissimilarities! Invent to your heart's content, but as will be discussed in
later points, the requisite scientific mechanisms and fossil evidences are
lacking, regardless of which "evolving" trait may be selected.
Pleading common ancestry is a begging of the question, since this is precisely
what is to be proven. Taxonomies
based on homology (common design for dissimilar functions) do not prove
evolution; in many cases, homologous structures are expressions of
non-homologous genes. In
embryology, homologous features often arise from disparate stem tissues.
To propose that every family, order, or phylum, whether extinct or
extant, be considered "transitional" is also circular reasoning,
since it presumes evolution. As a
side note, variations within a genome do not qualify as homologies.
Intermediate forms cannot be ignored, yet the popular nomenclature for
them, "missing links", remains their best description, regardless of
whose lineage is being reconstructed. An
honest phylogenetic tree diagram recognizes this fact by employing broken
lines to "join" the limbs. I
wouldn't suggest trying to climb that tree!
Now, there is a plethora of examples of elaborately designed systems in our
biological world. Can these
emanate from the randomly splashing paintbrush of evolution in any of its
"variations on the theme", like so much "modern" art? Or, are these the technical drafts of purposeful
architecture? By thermodynamics, increasing entropy results in lower order at
every level, snowflakes notwithstanding.
Can an "open system" really increase the probability of
intricacy? Perhaps an exploding
asteroid could be deigned to produce a single rectangular prism-shaped brick
by accident, but what of the Empire State Building, or any of the required
developmental stages in between? Failure
is inevitable, no matter how many asteroid impacts or "zillions" of
years such a process continues; yet this is at least the order of complexity
of even the most elemental biological organisms supposedly produced by the
randomly driven engine of evolution. Are
the complex biological systems that typify all known lifeforms really just
freaks of nature... or are they marvels of design?
The distinctive characteristics of major groups demonstrate in every case
forms and functions begging for ancestral gradations but finding none. A review of virtually any living being reveals design
features which scientists can only describe as astounding! The distinctions
are original, creative and complete. Look at the class of birds, whose
capacity for flight requires in addition to the obvious feathered wings, their
hollow-structured bones and auxiliary air sacs, which operate (unlike the more
common bellows design) by a counter-flow of air through capillary tubes,
maximizing the diffusion of oxygen into the blood. The belief that these interdependent features evolved
simultaneously, along with the necessary vision, balance, aerodynamics, and
instincts uniquely avian, and all by scrambled accidental processes over eons
of time, is a leap of existential proportions, hardly a thesis of science.
Look at the king of deep-sea mollusks, the squid, whose neurons and
complex eyes are the largest in the animal kingdom (analogous features, rather
than homologous). When attacked
or disturbed (or attracting a mate!) the squid brightly flashes its unique
chromatophores in warning. Even
the lowly termite has an uncanny social life - whenever the bugs rub against
each other, they deposit an individualized hormone.
If one of a half dozen different morphologies in the colony is lacking,
the proportions of the various hormones mix precisely to cause the termite to
transform into the needed style; other seasonally affected hormones govern the
swarming reproductive behavior of both termites and ants.
But what would be the advantage of such a complexity of traits if they
were not completely operative? The
honeybee's instinctive nectar dance is another feature that defies a history
of progressive incomplete functioning. Another
vast category of evidence for fully functioning design features in the insect
world is mimicry -- hover flies dressed like yellow-jackets, butterflies that
mimic the distasteful Monarch, walking sticks, and leaf-shaped insects of many
varieties - can these talents have arisen whimsically over hundreds of
generations? Yet adaptations such
as these are not exceptions in nature. (Or
are we all billions of perfectly adapted freaky accidents?) Rather, such beautiful and effectual designs characterize
every kind of animal and plant! "Parallel
evolution," no! This is
architecture, not fancy rubble. Add
your own favorite natural wonder to the list -- here are just a few more
creatures representative of thousands that in my estimation defy gradual
development:
* Bats - with a
voracious appetite for insects, they are perfectly adapted for night flight
with inimitable membranous hands and navigation by echolocation; their
earliest fossil forebears were complete in every detail.
How else could they survive?
* Bombardier Beetle -
self-defends by mixing one organ's volatile chemical with a catalyst from
another organ, then exploding it in the face of its surprised predator;
imagine the first million failures! Ouch!
* Black Wasp Orchid -
this plant secretes a perfume mimicking the scent of the female of the only
species capable of pollinating it, and sports a spring-loaded wasp-shaped
stamen to attach its load to the back of the male suitor-wasp; just one
representative of many unique reproductive strategies among flowers
* Hummingbird - the
musculature used to beat the wings of this marvel (hundreds of times per
second!) is unlike any other birds; and some of the flowers that feed them can
be pollinated only by them.
* Monotremes - the
platypus defies classification and imagination, yet is uniquely suited to its
amphibious egg-laying lifestyle. Fossil skulls of its spiny ant-eating friend,
the echidna have intricately convoluted brain cases, demonstrating relative
high intelligence throughout their existence, and no evidence of gradual
development.
*
Pterodactyls - amazing flying reptiles, with massive bones, and wings
stretched from their elongated (3+ meter) pinkies to their knees; no other
designs like these among animals living or fossil.
*
Whales - not only are these magnificent creatures perfectly equipped for their
deep sea home (unlike their supposed dog-like ancestors) the toothed versions
defy relationship to the baleen, with radically different feeding mechanisms
along with equally unlike cranial and mandible bones. Advanced sonar mechanisms (check out that humungous nose!)
show distinctive and effectual design.
* Woodpecker - its quick darting tongue is connected to long
shock absorbing tendons extending around the back of its head to the top of
its cranium. No other bird has or
would require this feature, yet without it the woodpecker would be knocked out
of commission by a bum rap! A
literal evolutionary headache...unless the feature appeared fully ready for
implementation from the outset!
From an evolutionary perspective, such musings are purely
metaphysical... after all, no matter how implausible the path taken by
evolution, here we are! So for
all the millions of disparate organisms it is alleged to have produced,
evolution must be a very lucky process indeed!
How difficult an evolutionary problem must be posed before attempts to
rescue the imagined phylogeny would finally be abandoned?
And how unlikely must an event be before it is recognized as an
impossibility? Some would rebuff the sheer weight of improbability by
proposing that evolution be somehow directed by a higher being. But this doesn't solve the problem for science.
Either the process stands by the supports of logic, evidence and
efficacious mechanisms, or it falls into the annals of science like so much
phlogiston burned in the fire of time. The
principle of cause and effect is the least controversial and most fundamental
tenet of science, but this is where I believe evolution crashes with the
loudest thud (!!) The story of phylogeny is replete with purported effects, but
painfully bare of corresponding causes. Of course, imagining reasonable
adaptive gradations has always been a fun game in evolution, but when it comes
to the molecular level, discrete steps are impossible to minimize.
To elucidate this further, our attention is turned to our inheritance,
DNA, the control center and secret of life.
B.
Inherent propagable information:
Every scholar of science is familiar with the experiments of Redi, Spallanzani,
and Pasteur, which put to rest the myth of spontaneous generation and birthed
the Law of Biogenesis. "Life
begets life and like begets like" became the best-established and
observed rule of biology. When
the 20th Century experiments of Miller and Oparin demonstrated the possibility
of artificial synthesis of amino acids, wishful thinkers brought the myth back
from the dead. Zombie-like, the
specter of spontaneous generation now haunts the halls of science wherever
evolution is taught. The term
"pre-biotic" graces lunch tables as the soupe-du-jour,
and without even an eye-blink the punch line is delivered: "Anything
could happen given enough time!" In
truth, the electrocuted peptides of the lab are only suggestive of the amino
acids required by real beings; half of them are right-handed, a no-no for
viability, the remainder are assemblages much like the disarranged letters
grabbed from a Scrabble bag. The
peptides and polypeptides of which consist true proteins, the essential
"bricks" of life, are yet to be concocted independently of living
cells; and if ever this Nobel-worthy feat is accomplished, it will prove once
and for all that it takes intelligent life to produce a "living"
substance! Proteins, orderly in
structure and specific in function, are decoded from DNA information through a
mind-boggling process. Nucleic
acids become more amazing with each new discovery; they contain more
information in a smaller volume than is conceivable by any artificial means.
So how did this information crucial to any definition of
"life" originate? Information
is the key word, for just as no points are scored by blindly tossing letters
onto the Scrabble board, so neither can just any permutation of nucleotides be
called a gene. Recall the
oft-quoted analogy of the immortal chimpanzee at the typewriter -- given
countless millennia, the poetic primate will fail to produce a single sonnet
of Shakespeare, let alone his collective works.
Yet the amount of information stored in a single bacterium is analogous
to that of a desktop computer. Even
this "simplest" of life forms carries out scores of intracellular
processes, each requiring exact proteins and enzymes coded for by its
cytoplasmic DNA. The lack of
organelles is a matter of efficiency -- they occupy too much space to be of
much use to the bacterium. Though their anatomy and physiology are
comparatively simpler, the role prokaryotes play in sustaining metazoans is
immeasurable. On a side note, how
did anaerobic bacteria evolve into aerobes, when the oxidizing atmosphere
required by the latter obliterates the first, and vice-versa?
Regardless, you don't need to be a molecular biologist to understand
the inherent design in the process of protein synthesis found in every living
cell.
The first step in assembling a
protein involves the unzipping of DNA. Specific
enzymes accomplish this by separating the strands at special markers so that
only information from the requisite gene is accessed. RNA molecules transpose themselves against the unzipped
strands of DNA, replicating the specific nucleotide sequence, with the aid of
transcriptive enzymes. This
sequence is maintained as the RNA ventures out into the cytoplasm to those
special construction sites, the ribosomes.
In eukaryotic cells this journey is aided by a network of pathways, the
endoplasmic reticulum. At a
ribosome, protease enzymes "collect" and affix available amino acids
into the precise sequence stipulated by the RNA.
The protein thus synthesized takes its place in the structure or
process of the cell for which it has been assembled.
This is the essence of life at the cellular level!
But wait...the best is yet to come -- enzymes are themselves proteins
created by the process that requires their presence from the outset.
Every one of the parts of protein synthesis, from the self-replicating
DNA to the RNA, to the multiplicity of required enzymes, to the amino acids
and proteins, is in fact a product of the process that requires them. (Mathematicians have computed the probability of a mere
ten-peptide protein forming by chance -- presuming amino acids, and the
reducing atmosphere, and not considering functionality -- to be less than 10-20,
virtually zero considering 1020 is about the number of stars in the
Milky Way.) The case for design
is further substantiated by the observation that many traits depend on the
action of several genes, and also that many genes are pleiotropic -- a single
gene directs more than one trait. In
addition, all this inherent information is self-replicating, propagating
through many variations of mitosis and meiosis, and in all cases manifesting
the Law of Biogenesis. This universally assures that the offspring will be
like their parents, and that no kind of organism can give birth to a new kind,
let alone arise from random chemical collisions.
Nowhere is the illogic of intermediate stages so blatant than in the
attempt to explain how the translational process that is the biological basis
of life could arise through spurious collisions in "pre-biotic"
soup. Aside from acknowledging
intelligent design, there is no recourse but to plead: Spontaneous generation!
"Boo!"
The
information problem is further complicated when we consider the tremendous
increase of information required by macroevolution. Here again, the devices proposed by evolutionary biologists
fail to connect the alleged effect with sufficient cause. The mechanisms of natural selection and mutation can account
for the diversity within a family of organisms referred to as microevolution.
The controversy arises when the variations seen in a population are
extrapolated to generate novel kinds of organisms.
And however improbable, the "one-in-a-million" positive
mutations (if they are that many) are the only means proposed by evolutionists
to add truly new information to a gene pool.
This haphazard kind of contribution to information was explored
previously in the Scrabble game and "morphing" analogies. Despite
the gross inadequacy of evolution's mechanisms, some have boldly claimed that
the world's natural history museums are stacked with the demonstrations of its
truth. As will be explored next, not only do all these contrivances
fall short of the phylogenetic goal, they in fact serve to oppose or thwart
the cause of evolution.
C.
Agreement with Natural History:
The theory of evolution permanently toppled one of the 19th
Century's biggest scientific paradigms, the "fixity of species."
The great success of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species was his
ability to show that through geographic isolation and specialization, a
population of organisms is able to adapt to changing environmental conditions.
While Darwin was undoubtedly aware of the genetics work of his
contemporary, Gregor Mendel, he was just as surely unfamiliar with it.
Neither Darwinism nor its neo-Darwinian counterpart is able to show how
any amount of crossover, recombination, or genetic drift can bring about
something truly new. Natural
selection produces at best no net change in preexistent genetic information,
and more typically results in information loss.
How does this work?
The quintessential case of natural selection is the story of
biston betularia, the famed peppered
moths. Before the industrial
revolution in England, the forests of Manchester were home to two varieties:
the white moths (about 97% of observed specimens), and the rarer black moths
(~3%). With the arrival of
coal-fired factories the trees became blackened with soot, and in a single
generation the population of moths took on a remarkable change in appearance.
Subsequent studies showed that black moths were now the majority race
(~ 80%) while the whites became the minority (~20%).
This was survival of the fittest before our eyes, as it was observed
that birds feasted on the less camouflaged white moths sitting against the
darkened barks, leaving the formerly more obvious blacks to propagate and
increase their numbers. Touted as
the best living proof of evolution for a full century, this story demonstrates
no evolution whatsoever! On a
side note, when Kettlewell recreated this phenomenon for the cameras, he
placed dead moths on the tree trunks for the birds to find.
Further studies have shown that the black moths nest high in the forest
canopy, where they are less susceptible to being trapped for the census.
Anyway, it was a nice story! The
1960's in America provided a similar case -- from the DDT-saturated croplands
emerged populations of flies that were resistant to the pesticide. It appeared
that once again a species had adapted to overcome the environmental pressure
threatening to extinguish it. Looking
closer, we see that a small percentage of flies had some trait (mutation?)
that enabled them to survive the effects of DDT, and survive they did,
returning to devastate the crops from which they had been so wishfully
eradicated. Sorry, no evolution here either, for if the DDT-resistant trait
had not been preexistent in the flies, by definition none would have survived.
This same pattern of natural selection has been repeated in the world's
hospitals, where widespread use of antibiotics has allowed intrinsically
resistant bacterial strains to proliferate.
Sometimes referred to as "super-bacteria," these are actually
super "wimps," unable to compete in a setting where the natural
flora are allowed to thrive, but opportunistic and often deadly in the sterile
environment of the operating room. Although
one might conjecture that the resistant trait resulted from some
"mutation", it is invalid to claim that these bacteria became immune
to antibiotics, as is commonly stated; once again there is no new organism...
no evolution.
Darwin's classic study of the Galapagos finches sheds little light on this
dilemma. He observed fourteen
versions of finch populations (mostly variations on the theme of
"beak") isolated from each other throughout the archipelago.
Each bird sports an appropriate style of beak, neatly adapted to access
the particular food source of its respective island. This multiplicity of adaptations implies a rich original
genome -- the ancestral finch had a lot of tricks tucked under its wings.
Other studies of pack-hunting predators such as wolves and hyenas have
demonstrated an interesting corollary to natural selection, "the survival
of the average." Apparently, conformity to the herd is often the prey's best
chance, as hunters tend to single out nonconformist targets -- both the weak
and strong -- in about equal proportions.
A population's genetic ability to diversify is fundamental to every
paradigm of biologic history, but does not necessarily support evolution...
why? The isolation of the finches
(place any genus here) results in inbreeding and specialization, local
adaptation with a cost, i. e. the local loss of information.
The next step in this regress (what made Darwin famous) is the isolated
population's loss of ability to interbreed with its cousins, resulting in
speciation; a new species, or more properly a subspecies, has arisen.
In both botany and zoology, the breeding of these variants has produced
well-known hybrids. But in some
cases the original genome can be recreated by crossbreeding two
"species", as is being attempted in South Africa, to reconstruct the
zebra's extinct ancestor, the quagga. In
every case of artificial or natural selection, whether observed or
hypothesized, the Law of Biogenesis has been repeatedly affirmed.
Extrapolating the selective process backward in time implies less original
variety among biological groups, but proportionally greater original genetic
potential. Although Stephen J.
Gould disputes the former implication, he depends upon the latter to allow for
the rapid diversification required by his theory of "punctuated
equilibrium", despite the inevitable doom it spells for spontaneous
generation, the founding point of his and every theory of evolution.
On the other hand, high original potential is the cornerstone of the
design model. Now, with
competition plus declining genetic potential, the ultimate end of natural
selection is the extinction of the species (or local subspecies). Here the museums of natural history lay their stockrooms
crammed with evidences upon evolution's altar... as is usual with such
offerings, these too must go up in smoke, as will be seen.
For most people though, fossils come to mind first when the discussion
turns to evolution. Pun aside, if
there is any hard evidence for macroevolution, surely we should be able to
find it among the myriad of fossils. But
what does the fossil record really show?
What
the Fossils Show:
1.
Remains of organisms, preserved since pre-history.
2.
Organisms often buried by catastrophic means, e.g. flood action or
volcanism; often in tremendous numbers, e.g. “fossil graveyards,” or in
massive volumes, e.g. fossil fuels.
3.
Generally rapid means of preservation of a variety of kinds.
4.
Representatives of fully developed modern phyla and families.
5.
Representatives of extinct phyla or families, e.g. dinosaurs, also
fully developed; these account for nearly two thirds of all organisms.
6.
Representatives of all modern phyla in lowest fossil bearing rocks.
7.
General arrangement by ascending habitat, with global distribution,
from bottom dwelling marine life to motile, versatile terrestrial life, e.g.
mammals, birds, and people.
8.
Frequent exceptions to the general case, out of order index fossils.
9.
Free atmospheric oxygen evidenced deep in Precambrian strata.
What
Fossils Don’t Show:
1.
How organisms lived or behaved in the past.
2.
Organisms covered by sedimentation slowly over eons of time.
3.
Evidence of “pre-biotic” compounds, or of the reducing atmosphere
required for their hypothetical existence.
4.
Prototypical life forms developing during the first three billion
alleged years of evolution.
5.
Intermediate stages of development from simpler ancestral forms to more
complex modern forms.
6.
Fossils always arranged in presumed evolutionary order, i.e.
"ancestors" always preceding "descendants."
7.
Fossils always arranged in the order of the "geologic
column."
Fossils provide the preponderance of evidence for models of natural history,
whether based in evolution or design. The
undebated testimony of the fossil record is that countless varieties of
creatures have died and been entombed in rock.
The mass burials of plants and animals mark the major events of the
geologic column. The assignment
of dates and eras to this column is a subject of the next section.
For people of all ages the most wondrous fossil creatures are the
dinosaurs, which are also a classic example of natural selection,
diversification, specialization and ultimate extinction. For any student of
"survival of the fittest," their fearsome proportions have
contributed to the impression of a long history of "kill or be killed."
The sheer size of many of these reptiles was probably their downfall,
both in terms of reduced mobility and consumption of food.
Interestingly, many of the unusual features that characterized
dinosaurs persist in modern reptiles, albeit on a much tinier scale (e.g. The
"triceratops" Jackson's chameleon).
It should be noted that the average dinosaur was about the size of a
sheep. An interesting
observation: given the right environmental conditions, the tropical climate
and food supply evidenced by the fossil record, and the fact that reptiles
grow during their entire life span, many modern lizards could reach
dinosaurian proportions. No doubt
several dino families are extinct, adding to their appeal; however many
reptiles (and mammals) contemporary with the dinosaurs live today essentially
unchanged from their former appearance. Although
this is an enigma for evolutionists, it is the general rule in paleontology,
and the sure prediction of design.
There are really only two kinds of fossils: extinct classes,
and modern classes, both types characterized by fully developed features.
However two often-cited "transitional" cases, the "horse
series," and Archaeopteryx, the
supposed link between reptiles and birds, deserve some discussion.
The little Eohippus achieved
fame as it appeared on the scene of evolution in the mid 20th Century, when
fossil hunters were in need of a suitable ancestor for Equus. Pliohippus, the horse's closest fossil relative, was
indistinguishable from the wild Himalayan horses of today, but three-toed
varieties, e.g. Mesohippus and Merychyippus,
had launched a promising series. These
were found to be fossil contemporaries of the modern type (curiously, modern
horses occasionally exhibit "throw-back" tridactyly) - thus the
search for an ancestral species was on. One
paleontologist, noticing that the jaw of the fossil hyrax Hyracotherium
was elongated and well suited for browsing, recruited it to fill the gap, and
changed its name to Eohippus ("dawn horse") to reflect its new
pseudo-identity. Now the 4-toed
to 1-toed, browser to grazer, fox-sized to horse-sized sequence has been
deemed worthy of inclusion in every biology textbook.
If it were not so contrived, this "best" fossil series would
make a nice chapter in the evolutionary saga, but the sequence does not
support a simple to complex evolutionary scenario, either theoretically or
materially. The only place to
watch the phylogenetic parade of horses is in literature, not in the
lithosphere. In fact, not a
single evolutionary succession of intermediate forms has been found anywhere
in the fossil record.
Archaeopteryx
fills no gaps either. This is
100% bird, fully feathered and a strong flyer to boot, as shown by the
asymmetry of its wing feathers. Its
22 jointed tailbones, clawed wings, and toothy grin are certainly unusual. But the South American hoatzin climbs with wing claws;
several families of modern birds sport up to 26 tail bones (fused), though
most birds have fewer; and suppressed genes for teeth are found in the DNA of
modern birds. In addition,
"modern" bird anatomies have been found in rocks which
"pre-date" Archaeopteryx. So the "old bird" is just that: unusual, extinct,
but avian to a fault. One could
only chuckle when the late notorious feathered dinosaur of China was being
prepped for a National Geographic special, only to be exposed as an elaborate
hoax. The story of human
evolution has seen similar troubles. The
race for human precursors has been so hotly pursued that it has many times
fallen off the track. The
"modern" human tracks in the Laetoli ash beds "pre-dated"
man's supposed parents, Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, H.
Erectus, H. Habilis, et.al., "pushing back human evolution millions of years"
according to Mary and Richard Leakey. The
Leakeys have also disowned "Lucy" and her monkey's uncle A.
ramidus as bonafide human ancestors.
Like the "first" fossil bat, the first whales, birds, fish,
insects, bacteria, or the first (choose any!), the earliest fossil humans were
indistinguishable from people today. In
most plant and animal groups, the variation found between present-day members
exceeds that found between living and extinct fossil members -- a slap to
evolution, but a clap for design. Recent
studies of fauna from the Messel oil shale in Germany have affirmed this fact.
A vast multitude of fossils have been scrutinized, classified, and put
on display. Show me one, placed
beside the fossil from which it "arose" (or to which it will arise),
and I will show you two creatures that are members of the same distinctively
designed family.
Certain
concessions must be made whenever a scientist investigates an idea such as
evolution that is irreplicable or unobservable. The conclusions drawn from such investigations always reflect
the initial assumptions, and this is no more applicable than in the
examination of the fossil record. Gould
and Eldridge conceded the lack of intermediates in hypothesizing
"punctuated equilibrium," but still maintained their fundamental
presumption of evolution. Thus
the absence of evidence (Darwin's "enigma") for them had to become
the rule rather than the exception. In
the case for design, the possibility of a designer is conceded.
However odious this may be for the "modern thinking"
scientist, neither presumption is less supportable than the other by sound
practices of science. In
our humanist public education system, in order to abide by Jefferson's
"separation of church and state," atheism has become the guiding
principle. With the click of a
pen, any slightest reminiscence of religion has been censored from the
classroom, unless of course it complies with the standards of the religion of
humanism. Returning to my initial
contention, I believe this has resulted in the teaching of dishonest science
and unnecessarily narrowed the definition of free thought.
Keeping an open mind, let us examine how the fossil record is
deciphered, focusing next on how the underlying assumptions actually determine
and foretell our conclusions.
D.
Expendability of Uniformitarian Assumptions:
One of the first rules for the interpretation of fossils is the principle of
superposition - more "recent" rocks lay atop "older" ones.
The common sense of this maxim obscures its underlying assumption, the
principle of uniformity. The global occurrence of many sedimentary formations has
given rise to the classification of rocks and their fossils according to
geologic eras. For evolution to
be credible, much time must be presumed.
Advocating long passages of time is certainly sensible enough given the
slow rates of change in sea level, river and ocean sedimentation, erosion and
climatic variation seen in the world today; George Lyell's premise for his
principle of uniformity -- "the present is the key to the past" --
was reasonable. Still there
remain two paradigms in geology: gradualism, and catastrophism. Since James Hutton, catastrophism had fallen into disrepute,
until it was revived by studies of volcanoes like Paricutin, Surtsey Isle and
Mt. St. Helens, earthquakes and tsunamis, global-acting ocean currents,
rapidly frozen mammoths, the K-T asteroid... all of which have demonstrated
that big events can produce far reaching effects in a very short time.
Nevertheless, day to day geologic rates are measured in units like
centimeters per century; extrapolating these rates retroactively, one can only
conclude that the rocks and their included fossils are very old.
For some the mere intimation of immense age lends credence to evolution
despite the paucity of empirical evidence.
So much time, with so little change?
It seems unlikely. Thus
the presumption obviates the conclusion.
Similarly, and circularly, the assigned ages of index fossils have been
calibrated to the assumed geologic time scale; so if, for example, a trilobite
fossil is found, the rocks are determined to be Cambrian and the age to be 600
million years. As tautological as
that is, if the findings of superposition actually correlated consistently
with the geologic column, or better yet with phylogenetic tree diagrams, this
would be a boon to evolutionary theory. The
exceptions have once again become the rule: inverted layers, unconformities,
nonconformities, discontinuities, facies deposits, overthrusting... all decry
the ability of superposition to support ideas of upward descent.
Additionally, geologists recognize that the majority of the alleged
time passage represented by a rock formation must be inferred from the missing
sequence, i. e. the hiatus or supposed erosional period between depositional
events. Again the conclusion of
great age is inferred not from observable evidence, but by the presumption of
long slow processes.
On the other hand, if global catastrophic forces have shaped the landscapes of
the world, justifying the general worldwide occurrence of mass extinctions,
then our current period of snail's pace geology cannot be used as the template
for interpretation. In this view,
the past is the key to the present; but since we must infer past events from
available evidence, and "the tape cannot be replayed," a contrasting
interpretation of the rocks is proposed.
Rapid, deep sedimentation, with little or no hiatus between deposits,
conformably interbedded lava and sedimentary layers, the absence of fossil
soils, these build a framework for a much younger Earth, shaped by processes
larger than ordinarily observed. This
framework advances that tectonic forces, including continental drift, be
afforded much faster rates than currently postulated.
Petrifaction and fossil fuel formation must be shown to be rapidly
achievable. Mantle convection and pressure due to slow plate movement have
been posited as the primary forces behind rock formation in traditional
models. The recent search for
alternative fuel sources has unearthed the fact that coal and oil are
achievable quickly, given proper heating and [clay] catalysts.
Even petrifaction of wood and bone has been accomplished in a matter of
hours in the lab, by saturation in adequate concentrations of silicates.
While there is no ultimate proof that geologic events happened quickly
in natural history, neither can the "slow tape" be replayed.
Of course, if rock strata did accumulate catastrophically, evolution
has lost its opportunity. Since
fossils don't really demonstrate evolutionary changes anyway, this is further
support for the design model: with reasonable mechanisms, sufficient time,
complex fully functional organisms, and the plausibility of catastrophic
earth-shaping forces, one could conclude that the world and its creatures are
a [geologically] recently designed product.
The debatable results of radiometric dating methods are the lengthy subject of
another paper. Suffice it here to
say that these methods presume Earth's antiquity... after all, if the planet
is too young to be dated by such devices, their antiquating results must be
invalid. Radiocarbon dates depend
on current rates of C14 flux throughout antiquity, an assumption
unsupported by climatic indices in the rocks.
Uranium decay methods depend on many assumptions, not the least of
which is that uranium bearing ores were pure uranium in their original state.
Age determinations based on different isotopes of uranium from the same
samples are generally discordant. The
question of rate is secondary for design models, since length of time may be
arbitrarily assigned. Not so for
evolution... as argued throughout this article, macroevolution is implausible
in any time frame, but is certainly impossible if time is short.
Finally, the fact of superposition is simply this: lower rocks and the fossils
contained in them were deposited before higher layers.
In a cataclysmic scenario such as a rapid fluctuation of sea level, the
general order of resulting burial of organisms would be by habitat and/or by
mobility. Sediments surging off
the continental shelves would bury bottom-dwelling marine animals in great
numbers followed by successively more versatile and terrestrial creatures,
with abundant exceptions. In the
opinion of the writer, this is a more consistent predictor of the actual
findings of the fossil record than the more contrived geologic column.
Several phases of this sea level flux, associated with shifting of
continents and associated orogenic events, would account for mass extinctions
as well as the worldwide occurrence of "shallow sea" sedimentary
layers. In the catastrophic
paradigm, the time scale associated with the geologic column could be greatly
contracted, but the general order of stratigraphy depicted by it might require
little modification.
In consequence, not only do evidences from biology and natural history support
inherent design, the model constructed thereby serves as a good predictor of
scientific discovery. It is not
sufficient however that a model be able to explain phenomena in a limited
discipline of study. Paradigms
have far-reaching consequences to a variety of subjects and pursuits.
The last two centuries saw the application of evolutionism to politics
and economics. Apartheid was
built on it. Adam Smith and his
capitalist heirs have built Western society on the concepts of competition and
survival. Marx and Hegel
foreworded their Communist Manifesto with a discussion of Darwin's Origin
of Species. Hitler and his
Aryan followers have tried to build a Nazi Reich based on the premise that
blacks and other ethnic groups are evolutionary inferiors, a doctrine wholly
advocated in Darwin's Descent of Man.
Paradoxically, the Nation of Islam also sees blacks as the original
race, with whites and other groups as inferior evolutionary descendants.
Environmentalists, population doomsayers, animal rights activists, [many]
federal and state lawmakers, UFOlogists and the searchers for extraterrestrial
intelligence all base their pursuits squarely on a belief in evolution.
AAAS, NSTA, and various states' (incl. Washington's) standards for the
teaching of science heavily emphasize evolutionary dogma, as do our textbooks
and media resources, which present evolution as fact, and dismiss design as
myth.
But
challenges to this viewpoint are not restricted to pockets of religious
fundamentalism. Gallup polls
indicate that a majority of people disagree with or do not wholeheartedly
endorse the teaching or claims of evolution.
This majority extends to science teachers, over 80% of whom believe
that evolution should not be taught as fact.
In the same polls even more people express a belief in a design model
and its implied designer. The
ramifications of intelligent design undergird the moral structure of society.
This is no pious platitude. On
what other basis can anyone justify right or wrong, whether it is a question
of behavior, curriculum or policy? Yet
we are directed to teach students they are the products of purposeless
collisions of molecules and genetic mistakes, naked apes in a universe
congealed from the scattered remnants of a huge explosion.
If humans are merely highly evolved animals, then survival becomes the
moral absolute and "kill or be killed" the ultimate reality.
How can a view of humanity such as this teach our students to cherish
and respect themselves and others? But
if human beings are the epitome of design, then it's time to rouse our
children's vision for our raison d'être
on this "rare earth" we call home.
I believe this is the true stuff of science.
Everything else is just earth, air, fire and water.
E.
Distinctiveness of Humanity:
The complexities of human anatomy and physiology are
staggering. Studies in comparative
anatomy often cited in evidence of an evolutionary relationship to animals only
serve to accentuate this amazing fact. One frequented line of reasoning involves
vestigial organs; on the list of more than 160 organs presumed by early
Darwinians to be useless (including such vital members as the coccyx, thymus,
tonsils, adenoids, spleen, appendix, hair, little fingers
and toes...), only about half a dozen remain.
Recapitulation in embryonic development has proved fruitless in showing
any kind of evolutionary progress. Genetics
has long proved we are fully human from conception.
Any first year ontogenist can distinguish between human and other embryos
at any stage of development. The
so-called "gill slits" of the young embryo are cervical folds that
differentiate into thyroid and parathyroid glands and have nothing to do with
breathing or lungs. Although our
skeletal similarities to primates are renown, our uprightness is equally
notable, our body chemistry is in many ways more similar to pigs, our leg
musculature comparable to frogs, and what animal can mimic the human voice
better than birds? For all the
superficial similarities one can evince, no feat of special design is more
astounding and yet comprehensible than the human body and mind. If while hiking through a forest you chance upon a camera
misplaced by a previous visitor, you would have no doubt that it was a created
artifact; yet the design of the eye with which you discovered it is indisputably
superior. Whether we may attribute
our many distinguishing qualities to the accumulation of hundreds of thousands
of chance genetic defects is of course a matter of personal preference.
Such introspection is a quality we share with no primate, despite sci-fi
depictions such as Clarke's monolithic monkey wars, Boulle's ape planet, or
Burroughs' Tarzan. Prose, poetry,
art and music are products of design, not evolution.
Yet the beauty we see in nature from the cosmos to the atom far surpasses
any of these. Abstract reasoning
and language, philosophy, religion, mathematics and science... the pursuit of
understanding who we are - the recognition of orderliness in nature and in
ourselves - these are qualities that elevate us to the summit of creation.
There
are many unanswered questions in the universe.
Science does not suffer by the admission that these will not be
answered by theories of evolution.
On the contrary, discoveries continually bring to light higher degrees
of complexity and organization in every sphere of inquiry.
The design model is a reasonable framework for the interpretation of
the natural world, with predictive potential equal or superior to evolution.
In addition, intelligent design implies what undirected evolution never
can - a purpose and objective for living.
Only in recent history has scientism been described in exclusively
materialistic terms. A detriment
to true science, this redefinition has debilitated our understanding of the
world around us. Some would say
this limitation is necessary in the formulation of scientific methodology -
then it is a limitation to be admitted, for the sake of a greater truth.
But if design is inherent in nature, is it really unscientific to
acknowledge this, and be enriched by the broadening of our materialistic
perspective? Some would teach
their students that they are cosmic accidents, but I will direct my students
to observe and appreciate the intricate yet elegant, beautiful yet rational,
immense yet measurable, complex yet comprehensible clockwork of the universe. This will not only engender a deeper appreciation for the
world in which they live, but will lead as well to a profounder sense of
purpose and personal responsibility. Show
them that there is intelligent order in the universe.
Then let them ask the questions that lead to a meaningful philosophy of
life:
"How
did all this orderliness come to be?"
"Do I fit in to a grander scheme of things?"
"What is
my purpose, my place in the universe?"
Perhaps
the case for design cannot be proven in the laboratories of science, but then
neither can evolution. As you
peer with wonder into the distant galaxies, or hike the majestic mountains, or
explore the depths of the sea, you might turn away with a sense of emptiness
or purposelessness. Maybe you
would agree with the Soviet cosmonaut who could fathom no God in the blackness
of outer space. Are you the
temporary result of a long and aimless sequence of chemical collisions,
without any purpose beyond the meeting of material needs?
Possibly the universe you see is a confusing jumble of accidents that
just happened to result in your being able to enjoy its beauty and understand
its orderliness. After all, even
the most exquisite tapestry is just a befuddling melange
of floss and color, meaning nothing...
if you look only at its back side.
"One cannot be exposed to the law and order of
the universe without concluding that there must be a divine intent behind it
all."
~ Wernher
Von Braun, rocket scientist
"God does not throw dice with the
universe."
~ Albert
Einstein, in response to quantum mechanics
"The grand agents of nature are, by the
Creator's fiat, indestructible."
~ James
Joule, stating his First Law of Thermodynamics
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets,
and comets
could only proceed from the counsel and dominion
of an intelligent and powerful Being."
~ Sir
Isaac Newton, from the Principia
"God is the author of geometrical truths and of
the order of the elements... those who stop at nature find no light to satisfy
them."
~ Blaise
Pascal, "inventor" of the calculator
"See what God hath wrought!"
~ Samuel
Morse, first message on the telegraph
By
Gordon Webb
gwebb@atmos.washington.edu
March 2000
