Creation-Evolution Debate
Dr. John T. Robinson vs. Dr. Duane T. Gish
University of Wisconsin, Madison
February 10, 1978. Edited slightly for grammar and clarity only.
|
Author: Dr. Jerry Bergman |
Essays by
Author |
Tape #1 – Dr. Robinson Evolutionist
This debate is typical of many on this topic—the evolutionists
spend much time on religion, creationists on science.
[The editor’s responses to his arguments are in brackets]
Mr. Chairman, Dr. Gish, ladies and
gentlemen, and the dog, if he is still around…
At the outset I wish to make a few
points clear. The first may seem to be
trivial, though this is not how it seems to me. And it is this…It is my firm opinion that every person has the
clear right to believe whatever they choose, and no one should try to ridicule
the beliefs of others, or attempt to coerce them into believing something they
don’t wish to believe, or attempt to prevent them from explaining what it is
that they believe [I wish this true among scientists—it clearly is not! They have ridiculed without end Darwin
skeptics and have fought tooth and nail against allowing criticism of Darwinism
anywhere they can].
I do not feel threatened by ideas
that are different from my own, nor do I have any missionary urge to convince
other people to believe as I believe [This is good to learn, but as I read the
debate, I wonder how valid it is], because I think that what one believes is a
personal matter, but I am, of course, perfectly happy to explain what I believe
and why.
Now the second point is crucial. It concerns clear perception of the
viewpoint, the basic point of departure, of creationists. Creationists of the Creation Research
Society frequently make the point that they represent…and I quote from Dr.
Gish, “the scientific case for creation devoid of all references to the Bible
or Genesis,” and state that all members of the Creation Research Society are
scientists with advanced degrees. The
letters of invitation that started this proceeding this evening emphasized that
the arguments would be made from a scientific, not religious, viewpoint. So let us see then what their viewpoint is
and some quotations from their publications will guide us.
The first are from Dr. Henry M.
Morris, who is Director of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego of
which Dr. Gish is Associate Director and these quotes are from the Impact
series number 5. “It is more productive to take the Bible literally and then to
interpret the actual facts of science within it’s revelatory framework. If the Bible cannot be understood, it is
useless as revelation.” I take that to
mean that, unless it speaks for itself perfectly clearly and doesn’t have to be
interpreted, then it’s not doing its job as revelation. The quote continues, ”If it contains
scientific fallacies, it could not have been given by inspiration.” And further from the same article…”The
specific purpose of this study is to show that all such theories …” evolution …
“which seek to accommodate the Bible to evolutionary geology are invalid and,
therefore, should be abandoned.”
Further… “Thus evolution is Biblically unsound, theologically
contradictory, and sociologically harmful.”
Still further...”We must conclude, therefore, that if the Bible is
really the Word of God, then evolution and its geological age-system must be
completely false. Since the Bible
cannot be reinterpreted to correlate with evolution, Christians must diligently
precede to correlate the facts of science with the Bible” [this is typical—Darwinists,
instead of focusing on science, attack the religious beliefs of Darwin skeptics
and creationists alike].
Our good Dr. Gish, himself, adds to
this in Acts and Facts, …”I have always accepted the Bible and God’s
unchanged, and unchangeable revelation to man, and since it describes man and
his universe as a special creation of God, I’ve always been a Creationist.”
Now still further in the book Scientific
Creationism, Dr. Morris, assisted by Dr. Gish and others, writes…
It should be emphasized that this order is
followed, not because…that of putting the scientific discussion before the
theological discussion…”it should be emphasized that this order is followed not
because the scientific data are considered more reliable than Biblical
doctrine. To the contrary, it is
precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and
perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same
testimony as that of Scripture. There
is not the slightest possibility that the facts of science can
contradict the Bible and, therefore, there is no need to fear that a truly
scientific comparison of any aspect of the two models of origins can ever yield
a verdict in favor of evolution.
We see here, ladies and gentlemen, clearly
expressed a basic viewpoint that is the antithesis of that of science [hardly,
science is the search for truth, both about the physical world and about
religion—the existence of the “Scientific Study of Religion” Association
attests to this fact]. Now I’m not here
concerned with comparing one with the other to decide which is right and which
is wrong [Yet he does this here!]. That
decision is for each person to make for himself. I’m concerned here merely to point out that these points of view,
the one expressed in those quotations, and the scientific point of view are
very different; and they are all together incompatible.
The scientific point of view involves
the sustained attempt to build a coherent body of knowledge of the external
world on the basis of the fewest possible unsupported assumptions [so does
religion]. The only authority allowed
in science is that of well-documented fact.
No person or book in science has absolute authority to dictate what
scientists must believe [this, of course, is not true. Science has clear authorities, such as Nobel
Laureates, journals (Science and Nature), and schools (Harvard,
Yale)]. Doubt is an integral part of
the way in which science precedes.
Scientists all know that science contains errors. But science is a self-correcting system [it
often takes much time, though]. It
proceeds by a method, which uncovers its own errors and therefore tends always
to produce a closer and closer approximation to “truth,” what ever that may
mean.
So error, you see, is no crime in
science. The normal way in which
science grows is for a better theory to replace one that is less effective, or
has proved to be faulty. And facts that
are proved wrong are discarded [this is the ideal, not the real, especially as
it concerns Darwinism].
One should also, it seems to me,
distinguish very clearly between science, the body of knowledge, and the
scientist, the person, if a scientific researcher or any person with a science
degree expresses an opinion it is not therefore automatically a scientific
opinion. To be a scientific opinion, it
must be based only on at least reasonably tested evidence that was generated
within the scientific framework and by the procedures of science. If an opinion goes beyond the tested
scientific evidence it ceases to be a scientific opinion by that very fact that
it goes beyond what has been established.
[Good point, and well stated!
Darwinism goes well beyond fact.]
The creationists’ explanation of
their point of view demonstrates that it is all together incompatible with the
viewpoint of science, which I have just described. On the one hand a person cannot function within the creationists’
framework according to the rules of science because no matter what his
experiments may show, he may not believe anything that is inconsistent with the
creationists’ literal interpretation of the Bible [this is totally false, as
shown by the fact that creationists disagree among themselves both about the
Bible’s meaning and creationism. Most
creationists don’t take a literal interpretation, but a historical
interpretation]. He is locked into an
inflexible system that is laid down for all time, as the quotation from Dr.
Morris points out, what may be accepted and what is not. So you see, he’s not free in this situation
in the way that a scientist is to follow where the evidence leads [totally
false—creationists of today hold very different ideas then even 50 years ago,
such as the canopy theory is no longer accepted]. On the other hand, the creationist cannot function within the
scientific framework because, unlike scientists, he is not free to follow the
evidence, but may believe only that which his inflexible authoritarian
religious system allows him to believe.
[Totally false! Even critics of
creationism commonly stress that science and religion are two separate worlds
that are not bridgeable. This view
contradicts his claim. Also, what if a
science fact supports the Bible? What
is wrong with using it as evidence to support the Bible? If a section of the Bible is true, why not
note the evidence? It appears to me
that some people do not want the Bible to be true.] Now may I repeat, I am not here concerned
with which of these two systems is best, I’m simply trying to compare them and
show the ways in which they differ [it is obvious that you are clearly
concerned about which system is best here].
Ones own psychological makeup will dictate which of these systems one
prefers, and one person cannot validly decide for another, which, if any, they
should embrace. [Psychological
make-up? What about the facts! Should not the facts determine the answer to
this question?] That is a decision that
each person has to make for himself.
[Are students given both sides in public schools so as to do this? Clearly they are, as a whole, not.]
But what does become clear from this
analysis is that there can be no such thing as a scientific case for creation
as understood by members of the Creation Research Society “devoid of al
references to the Bible or Genesis” [totally false!]. What science they accept, and what they reject is, you see, on
the basis of this explanation from Scientific Creationism, in no way
related to the quality of the evidence which supports the scientific facts
which are accepted. The sole criterion
is, as the quoted material from Morris makes very clear, whether the science
agrees with the literal interpretation of the Bible. That’s the criterion that decides which science is acceptable and
which isn’t [the facts are much more complex then this gross over
simplification!].
So the criterion that dictates
absolutely what science is acceptable to them, according to their own
descriptions, that criterion lies right outside of science. Now for this reason, it seems clear to me
that it is futile to suppose that Dr. Gish and I can have a scientific debate,
on the validity of evolution. It cannot
be scientific in the ordinary sense of the term, because Dr. Gish and his
colleagues—use a special definition of science, a religious definition [again,
this is a typical response in these debates—scientists talk about religion, and
creationists about science! Dr.
Robinson, get to the science!].
To shorten the last quotation which I
have already given from Dr. Morris, “Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative,
not the slightest possibility that the facts of science can contradict the
Bible, therefore there is no need to fear that a truly scientific comparison
can ever yield a verdict in favor of evolution.”
In other words, “True Science” is
defined as that scientific information which does not contradict a literal
interpretation of the Bible [no—read the whole statement]. Also, by their definition, and scientific
information, now and in the future, that supports evolution, or appears to
support evolution, is thereby automatically not “true science” [or it can be
interpreted from both world views].
I do not, and most scientists do not,
accept this “religious” definition of what is good science and what isn’t, so
it seems to me just mere pretense to say that the debate is purely on
scientific grounds [we are only saying that science fact supports our creation
belief]. The essential difference in
the connection between Dr. Gish and myself, is not that we are two scientists
who interpret the scientific evidence differently, the essential difference is
that, unlike me, Dr. Gish holds a religious belief that absolutely prohibits
him from accepting as valid and scientific evidence of whatever kind that
supports evolution, and I do not believe anyone can really understand him
without recognizing this point. [This
is a false, gross distortion!]
Yet another factor reduces the
possible meaningfulness of this debate; I accept neither of the two sides as
presented. The creationists argue that
there are only two valid viewpoints, their view of literal acceptance of the
Bible, and an atheistic materialistic evolutionary interpretation on the other
hand. Now this later point of view, (an
atheistic, materialistic, evolutionary view), is not the scientific view of evolution. [Most of the leading top scientists
will disagree with you.] It is a
philosophical view incorporating what science knows about evolution, but going
well beyond that into metaphysics. Now
I do not accept that point of view. I
do not accept an atheistic, materialistic, view of the universe. And I believe it highly misleading to give
the impression that one is concerned with discussing the scientific view of
evolution, when in fact, the creationists are contrasting two philosophies, and
special kind of theism on the one hand, and materialism on the other.
There are other positions than these
two, and large numbers of Christians, followers of other religions, and many
scientists, fall into the position of, in fact, accepting positions other than
the two which are presented as the only valid ones here. [Still on religion! Are we ever going to get to the
science?]
Creationists categorize those who
believe in evolution as atheists and materialists and quote some statements
from a few well-known biologists to prove this. This procedure involves the fallacy that anything a scientist
says is science. Dr. Gish quotes, among
others, G. G. Simpson, a very well known evolutionary biologist and
paleontologist of this country, in passages where he is expressing his own
philosophical beliefs as proof of the basically atheistic, materialistic,
viewpoint of scientists about evolution.
He does not, however, quote Simpson where he writes in his book The
Meaning of Evolution,
Scientists,
and particularly the professional student of evolution, are often accused of a
bias toward mechanism or materialism, even though believers in vitalism and
finalism are not lacking among them.
Such a bias as may exist is inherent in the method of science. The most successful scientific investigation
has generally involved treating phenomena as if they were purely
materialistic, rejecting any metaphysical hypothesis as long as a physical
hypothesis seems possible. The method
works, the restriction is necessary, because science is confined to physical
means of investigation. And so it would
stultify its own efforts to postulate, that its subject is not physical, and so
not susceptible to its methods. Yet few
scientists would maintain that the required restrictions of their methods
necessarily delimit all truth, or that the materialistic nature of their
hypotheses imposes materialism on the universe.
You see
this is making a clear distinction between how one has to proceed
scientifically because we can not, in the laboratory, show the existence of
spirit, or determine that a soul exists and show what its characteristics are
[is it wrong to try? Also, he is still
on religion! What does this have to do
with the validity of Darwinism?].
Therefore, it is not possible to
distinguish between a hypothesis that includes such views, and one that does
not. You cannot test them, and
therefore we have to proceed without that.
But he points out, “This doesn’t mean to say, that because scientists
have to proceed this way that their philosophies are all that of
materialism. This is the way one has to
proceed as a scientist, as distinct from what one views are as a person with a
philosophy. [Yet many scientists also
have a clear philosophy—it is called naturalism.]
Dr. Gish also quotes Dobzhansky, a
very famous evolutionist who died recently, as evidence that evolution is
materialistic in principle, again where he is expressing his philosophical
views. But look at the definition that
Dobzhansky and colleagues give of evolution in their 1977 textbook on
evolution. This is what they give as
their formal definition of evolution at the beginning of this textbook on
evolution:
Organic evolution is a series
of partial or complete and irreversible transformations of the genetic
composition of populations, based principally upon altered interactions with
the environment. It consists chiefly of
adaptive radiations into new environments, adjustment to environmental changes
that take place in a particular habitat, and the origin of new ways for exploiting
existing habitats. These adaptive
changes occasionally give rise to greater complexity of developmental pattern,
of physiological reactions, and of interactions between populations and their
environment.
As you see,
there is nothing metaphysical about that definition; it does not commit one to
any particular kind of philosophy. Here are a few other scientific definitions
of evolution:
Sewall
Wright says “Evolution is the statistical transformation of populations.”
Dodson
& Dodson in the 1976 edition of their text Evolution say “Evolution
is the process by which related populations diverge from one another, giving
rise to new species, or higher groups.”
Moody, in the 1970 edition of his text Introduction to Evolution
says, “We may define organic evolution as the theory that plants and animals,
now living, are the modified descendants of a somewhat different plants and
animals that lived in time past. And so
on, step by step, back to a beginning shrouded in mystery.” [If this were true, creationists would not
have a problem. The fact is, this is
not what Darwinism is about!]
Charles Darwin himself referred to
evolution as “decent with modification.”
And one might note in passing, incidentally, that the final sentence of
Darwin’s most famous book on evolution, The Origin of Species by Means of
Natural Selection, is as follows:
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having
been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms or into one; and that,
whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity
from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have
been, and are being evolved.” [Ah, he
is a creationist! The fact is, he
regretted this statement later in his life.]
So you see, one sees here then that
the definitions of evolution by working biologists who are concerned with
evolution, contain no metaphysics, and bear little resemblance to the
creationist’s definition of evolution.
[Not in 2005! Many scientific
organizations make it very clear as to where they stand—evolution has no room
for God anywhere!] On the other hand,
the personal philosophies of these same biologists range anywhere from theism
all the way to atheism, at the other end of the spectrum. So you see there is a distinction between
what is scientifically regarded as evolution, and what philosophies people hold. And scientists surely are entitled to their
philosophy or having a philosophy just as any other person has. [Are they?
Then why do you condemn Gish’s philosophy?]
In my own course on evolution on
this campus, I always point out that the scientific evidence for evolution is
completely neutral with respect to whether or not God, or any other spiritual
agencies exist [This is clearly teaching a religious belief!]. On that question one has to make up ones own
mind on evidence which is not scientific.
Of course, what science has found out should be considered when you are
making up you philosophy. But you
cannot make a complete philosophy of scientific evidence only, because science
does not cover anything near the whole realm of human experience and therefore
it is not complete enough to give you a philosophy even if it had, so to speak,
completed its investigations, which it is, of course, a long way from having
done [well stated].
Now, looking into the validity of the
scientific view of evolution involves two questions; does it occur and if so,
by what mechanism? The first is of the
most relevance here and the biologists concerned believe that its validity has
been proved as well as any scientific theory or explanation can be [micro yes,
macro no]. As Sir Carl Popper, and
David Hume two centuries before him, pointed out, no amount of logical support
can, in fact, prove any theory to be absolutely correct. There is always the possibility, the real
probability, that it will be replaced by something better, and therefore you
can never prove its complete validity.
But that evolution as understood by scientists, is a fact of nature is
as certain as it can be. About the
mechanism there is a lot more doubt [Many try to deny this fact. Also, if we cannot agree on a method, does
this not lend doubts as to the process?].
Now all of biology provides evidence
that supports evolution as understood by science. But the fossil record provides direct historical evidence for
testing whether the scientific kind of evolution does occur. Now strictly speaking, if there is no
evolution, that is, if there is no change, than one should find that always
whenever one looks back in the past organisms are essentially the same [this is
what is found for most kinds of life except for life forms no longer with us appear
suddenly, and either are still with us or become extinct]. But if evolution of the scientific kind is
true, that is to say the organisms change with the passing of time, then one
should find, as one goes back in time, that the fossils that one finds become
increasingly unfamiliar, as compared to the forms that we know at the present
time. And this is indeed what one finds
[what one finds is little, if any, change.
The fact is stasis, not change, dominates the fossil record by
far].
Going back one reaches a point where,
for example, there are no more mammals and birds. You go back further in time; you reach a point where there are no
more reptiles. You go back still further
in time; you reach a point where there is no more amphibians. And still further back, there are no more
fish. You have only invertebrates
represented in the fossil record. [This
is way oversimplified. Also, major
problems exist with this view!] So the
scientific view that evolution involves patterned change in living organisms as
time passes is therefore clearly shown to be the case.
But creationists object saying this
certainly does not satisfy them.
Evidence within a “kind” is not evolution... Now what then is a “kind”?
They define it so loosely, largely by example, that it may be a species,
it may be a genus, it may be a family, it may be an order, and it may even be a
class, or even slightly larger than a class because one of the examples given
is the distinction between fish on one hand and other kinds of animals on the
other; and fish consist of a number of classes so you have to go above the
class level even to include all fish.
[No, many creationists define “kind” up to the genus level in many
cases, and possibly, in some cases, even the order level.] Now this concept is so flexible that it is
unusable [the concept of species is also very flexible]. Anything can be called a kind that the
occasion demands [not true, and much work is going into this now].
An addition to this definition by Dr.
Gish does not help. Dr. Gish explains
that they had shared a common gene pool, that is to say, anything that has come
from a common gene pool can be considered a kind. If scientists could trace every known species of animal all the
way back to an original species of single celled creature, the creationist
could still say, “Ah, but you haven’t proved evolution because they all come
from that one gene pool right at the beginning. So all of nature could, by this definition, be tied into being a
single kind. [If this could be done,
the point is valid. The fact is, it
cannot be done.]
This kind of thinking underlines my
point, that the creationists’ use of a religious definition of science makes a
debate, such as this, really pointless [not at all. What is wrong with exploring ideas?]. But let us persevere. Dr. Gish says that the fossil record has
provided no transitional forms between different sorts of animal, and that if
evolution were true, there should be many of these. Actually there are many long family histories known, horses,
elephants, camels, ammonites, literally dozen of such extended groups, that are
all tied together as being a clear evolutionary group, are now well documented
[and all are still being debated! Many
are examples of microevolution]. And
some of these histories may run over 50 or 60 million years, with many branches
presented. But creationists say “No,
that’s not evidence of evolution. Each
of these kinds, each of these groups, trace back to an original ancestral form
and, therefore, this definition of having belonged to a single gene pool
applies and therefore one is, in fact, dealing with one kind. So change within a kind is not evolution.”
But is this view reasonable? What is a transitional form? The history of horses, for example, has been
traced back through 50 or 60 million years to a form called Hyracotherium [this
is very debatable and even horse experts are not in agreement]. This animal was, however, extremely
different from the modern horse [true, and for this reason this animal may not
have been a horse]. It was small, with
relatively shorter legs and neck. It
had high hindquarters and low front quarters, and it had a convexly curved
back, not the straight kind of firm back that one sees in horses. The brain was more like that of a reptile in
fact, than like that of a horse. The
teeth were entirely different in structure, and even between Hyracotherium and
modern horses, a new tissue, a whole new tissue, a cement, has come into
existence in the horse line so that later horse teeth have a different kind of
structure in principle from that of the earlier ones. And on top of this, these early Hyracotheriums were forest
dwelling, browsing animal, not a plains dwelling, and grazing animal. [On this basis, many argue it was a
different animal, not a transitional form that evolved into a horse.]
Hyracotherium would not be regarded
as any relation whatsoever to the horse of today if it was not for these
transitional forms that line it to the modern horse [this is very
questionable]. In fact, this is not
simply a post facto statement.
Hyracotherium was the first of the fossil horses that was found. And when Sir Richard Owen described it, and
he looked around for what animals were most like it, he did not consider it had
any relation to the horse at all. He
called it Hyracotherium because he thought it was like the hyrax which is a
small rabbit-like animal lacking long ears, and a tail, which lives in Africa
[some today argue that is what it is, a hyrax-like animal].
He didn’t think it had any relation
at all to horses. It’s only by finding
the intermediate forms that we can now in fact link that creature to the horses
at all. It is not a horse; it’s far more
like a condylar than anything else. It
is the transitional forms that establish the relationship. Now the same sore of thing is true of most
of these other extended family histories.
The animals that they have been traced from could not be linked to those
modern forms if it were not for the transitional forms that link them. Rather than having no transitional forms,
there are actually museums full of them.
Each such history represents a very large amount of evolution, both in
time in the amount of change that has occurred vertically, and also laterally,
in the amount of diversification that has happened within the group. But let us, however, accommodate the
creationists by considering still larger transitions, say reptile to
mammal. That, after all, is surely a
pretty large-scale transition.
Even here the fossil record has
provided good transitions. In the
particular case of reptile to mammal, one of the numbers that are known, one in
fact has got such a good transitional series that we’ve gotten into serious
classification problems. We’ve got in
the earlier portion of the sequence animals that we all agreed are reptiles –
no argument. Later on in the transition
there are animals, which we are all agreed are mammals – no argument. But in between are a lot that are just
impossible to classify so what we’ve done is simply take an arbitrary
definition, draw a line and say, we will consider these from there are up
mammals and ones below that line we will regard as reptiles. [This is partly because all we have to go on
to make these judgments is bones and teeth—less than 10% of the whole
animal.]
Reptile to mammal evolution is also
very debatable. Not one skeletal
feature distinguishing reptiles from mammals.
The most important differences are, of course, physiological and
embryological and you can’t see those from fossils, but there are a lot of
significant skeletal differences between mammals and reptiles and one of these
is the nature of the jaw hinge, the way the lower jaw attaches to the upper
jaw. And in reptiles one has this hinge
consisting of an articular bone. The
early jaws consist of many bones, and one of them is the articular. It attaches or articulates with the quadrate
bone in the upper jaw. In mammals those
two bones are not involved at all. It’s
the dentory in the lower jaw, the only bone that’s left in mammals, the one
that has the teeth in, and it’s the Squamosal bone in the upper jaw.
So here you have just the sort of
thing that anti-evolutionists commonly say proves that evolution couldn’t
happen. You have two totally different
kinds of structure in those two beasts and any transition, which would not be
functional. But, in fact, the fossil
record has shown very beautifully what happened [it has not done this at
all]. It has shown that, for awhile,
both hinges worked side by side in the same animal and then the old reptile
hinge disappeared into the middle ear as two of the old reptile hinge
disappeared into the middle ear as two of the bones that transmit sound in the
middle ear – another of the distinctions between mammals and reptiles. In reptiles there is only one bone in the
ear transmitting sound. In mammals
you’ve got three, the original reptilian one and two more. And those two more are these two bones from
the reptilian hinge that have disappeared and have gone into the middle ear. Surely, this is a very beautiful transition
from a reptilian condition into a mammalian condition through an observed
rather unexpected intermediate condition [this conclusion is also based on
little empirical information and much assumption].
Another of the things that is
different between mammals and reptiles is the presence of a solid bony,
secondary bony palate, which separates the nasal cavity from the mouth
cavity. There is no such separation in
the parent reptiles from which the mammals arose. But again, this series of fossils shows this transition very
beautifully. You actually see again
something that the anti-evolutionists say can’t happen and that, instead of
there being no palate and then a complete palate, with creation in between, one
sees a little bony ridge start growing out from the level of the roots of the
teeth on either side [all this shows is that much variation exists].
And gradually over millions of years,
it extends out until eventually it meets and fuses and then expands forward and
backwards and you have a complete bony palate and those intermediate stages
where there isn’t complete fusion right across are represented there in the
fossil record. Along with these changes
of the jaw hinge and so on showing that a lot of them were going on not exactly
the same speed but approximately parallel with each other. The same thing is true of the teeth. Reptiles have quite different teeth from
mammals and the earlier reptiles in the transition have typical reptilian teeth
but are constantly being replaced that are opposite each other.
At least you have two next to each
other, one falls out the other one is operative and this one falls out and
meantime this one is growing back again and they keep on doing this right
through the life of the individual in that kind of socketed tooth reptile from
which the mammals came. Mammals on the
other hand have totally different kinds of teeth, all just conical teeth. Mammalian teeth are differentiated into a
different kind in front and the canine and then the cheek teeth consisting of
premolars and molars and they have fit right opposite each other because you
can’t have the specialization of the cusps to work properly as effective
comminuters of food if you don’t have them properly laced opposite each other
and they can’t keep on falling out so you have only two sets of teeth instead
of a multiple of sets all through the life of the individual. In mammals you only have two. This transition you can also see through
that sequence: you start off with typical reptilian teeth and the end of the
sequence you’ve got typical mammalian teeth and you’ve got all stages I between
right across that transition [this is not accurate at all! At best, it shows normal morphological
variation, sexual variation, and developmental variation—not evolution].
Now interestingly, Dr. Gish quotes a
leading expert whom I have already referred to, G. G. Simpson as an authority
for the statement that there are no known transitional forms in the fossil
record. This quotation is from a 1944
book. This book was extensively revised
and issued under a new title in 1953.
On the basis of much newer evidence, Simpson says—in 1953—that in fact
between the two books more work of relevance had been done in that particular
field than had been done in all the time before 1944—and is this 1953 book
Simpson says
Among the
examples are many in which beyond the slightest doubt a species or genus has
been gradually transformed into another.
Such gradual transformation is also fairly well exemplified for
sub-families and, occasionally, for families.
As the groups are commonly ranked splitting and gradual divergence of
species is also exemplified although not as richly as phyletic transformations
which means straightforward changes in the group without the group
splitting. No doubt because
paleontological samples are really adequate in spatial distribution splitting
and gradual divergence of genera is exemplified very well, and in a large
variety of organisms complete examples of sub-families and families are also
known.
Now much more new information of this
kind has accumulated since 1953 when this book was written. For example, some of the things I’ve been
talking about in the reptile-mammal transition have come to light since that 1953
book. Once can only wonder then why Dr.
Gish quoted the rather negative 1944 statement rather than the very positive
1953 statement since references in his book shows that in fact he used both
books. [You should ask him rather then
assume he that he is dishonest.] Now
Simpson goes on, after having made this clear cut statement about transitions
in the record, to make a very reasonable point that, since the record has now
provided examples from tiny transitions through to major transitions that the gaps
that still remain were presumably filled by similar transitions, that is to say
that, having established a few transitions, major transitions proves the
principal valid.
Creationists often say no one has
ever observed the origin of a new species [who said this?]. Now this is not so. In 1927 for example Karpechenko crossed
cabbage and radish producing a new kind of plant. It was a useless plant because it didn’t have the head of the
cabbage and it didn’t have the root of the radish, but it was, in fact, an
extraordinarily interesting plant because it was freely fertile itself but
could not breed with either of its parents and therefore was a genetically
isolated new kind of plant quite separate from its parent forms. [The concern is evolution by natural
selection, not humans using intelligence to produce new varieties of plants or
animals as we have been doing for thousands of years. This example is a hybrid, not a new, higher evolved species that
evolved as a result of natural selection of mutations.]
Around this time from 1925 to about
1935 a number of such experiments produced this kind of new plant. And what’s more, chromosome studies because,
genetically, such a plant is widely different from either of its parents
because it contains the complete genetic makeup of both of the parents. But studies on the chromosomes of flowering
plants have shown that this process, which has been done experimentally in this
way, apparently is very common in flowering plants because there are many
plants with a chromosome make-up that indicates that this type of thing has
been happening that there were new plants derived from hybridization between
other plants.
Now in his book, Dr. Gish states that
mutations are crucial to the scientific view of evolution, yet observed
mutations, he says, always prove to be harmful. That’s a quote. And he
goes on to say that probably not a single observed mutation could definitely be
said to have increased the viability of the organisms involved. Now this statement is contradicted by an
extensive scientific literature on the topic.
Most people are probably perfectly
well aware of this because I’m sure most of you heard of the cases where some
disease organism that was well controlled by some particular antibiotic
develops by mutation forms which are resistant to the antibiotic and this
produces problems particularly in hospitals where these organisms become
established in the hospitals because of the presence of the antibiotics. These resistant forms become established in
the hospital and then produce a particular bad medical problem. Now to investigate that Nobel laureate
Joshua Lederberg (who used to be a professor of genetics on this campus) did an
experiment in which he showed that a particular bacterium that he was studying
in the presence of as little as .2 micrograms per milliliter of streptomycin
were unable to survive, but a mutation occurred in that strain after quite a
long time.
A mutation occurred in it, which
allowed the mutated form to survive quite happily in a 125,000 micrograms per
milliliter of streptomycin. In other
words, the capacity for that organism to survive in that particular situation
where there is streptomycin present had been enormously increased. [This has been extensively studied and
written about by creationists—and does not prove Gish wrong! It is irresponsible to use this example!]
Much experimental evidence now exists
demonstrating improved viability caused by mutation in a wide range of
organisms. Drosophila the vinegar fly,
commonly known as the fruit fly, has been studied enormously in this
respect. There are a large number of
mutations that have been observed, and it has been calculated by the people
working most extensively on it that about 10% of mutations are not harmful and
that, of those 10%, a significant amount are in fact beneficial and many
studies have been shown to demonstrate this in detail. The studies such as, in the case of one
particular, just to name one, out of many mutation that compared to the stock
which produced that mutation the controls that if tested at a temperature of 16o
Celsius the new mutated form was 2% less viable than the original, and if
tested at 29o centigrade it was 2% less viable than the original
stock, but at 25o it was .4% more viable than the original
stock. [This is probably
microevolution. I would love to see the
reference on this.]
So this kind of detailed
documentation of the fact that mutations do improve, can improve viability is
very well established. There are many
other examples. Probably many people
have heard of the numerous examples more than 100 cases of industrial melanism
in moths where light colored moths have produced dark populations in areas that
have been industrially polluted. Now
this has been genetically well established that this is a mutation at the site
that produces the normal coloration of the light moths [I have never seen
evidence that this trait is due to a mutation, but is a normal color variation]. But where the environment is becoming very
dark, the light moths are so conspicuous they get eaten and they become very
unsuccessful even though there were very successful in unpolluted areas where
they’re very camouflaged when they sit on the mottled tree trunks and are
preyed on by the birds, if they are conspicuous, they get seen by the birds and
are eaten immediately.
If they’re inconspicuous they can survive and breed and pass on
those successful characteristics. But
where the environment starts becoming affected by pollution, as it commonly was
around the middle of last century, where these mutations that produced the dark
individuals show up, they enable the moths to survive more easily because the
dark forms against the polluted tree trunks are not easily seen by birds. So here you find a mutation which is in
those circumstances producing a very much more viable organism because in fact
in some cases the mutations didn’t occur quickly enough and in those cases the
populations disappeared from those areas.
They couldn’t survive as well as light moths in those areas, but if the
mutation producing the dark form showed up they were able to survive. [This whole account is very
questionable. See Judith Hopper, Of
Moths and Men.]
So, ladies and gentlemen, what I’ve
been trying to show here is what the assumptions are from the point of view of
the creationists, in their own writings.
I am not trying to give my definition of what they believe and to
contrast that with what scientists believe about evolution, and to show that
there is a great deal of detailed evidence and, of course, there are large
areas of evidence that I have not gone into [except the fact is you have tried
to make your case but failed]. There simply isn’t time for
that to demonstrate that what scientists mean by evolution is something that is
very well documented and, in fact, so much so that almost any field—well in
fact any field of biology—produces large amounts of evidence in favor of this
fact that you’ve got an enormous amount of patterns in nature. You’ve go the kinds of evidence such as that
that I have just lightly touched on here, of studies of populations and there
are many besides those of the moths which show the action of natural
selection. All natural selection is,
it’s nothing mysterious, is the natural interaction of organisms with their
environment, the consequence of which is certain kinds of individual survive
more easily than others, and by so doing, and reproducing, bias the
characteristics of the next generation before.
[Well stated! The problem is not
the survival of the fittest, but the arrival of the fittest.]
And so we’ve not only got then from
the fossil record evidence of minor transitions, very small scale changes which
could be brought about quite easily by the sort of natural selection operation
that we see, in natural populations that have been studied, over long periods
of time, but we’ve also got in the fossil record a clear indication that this
process leads to very small transitions, larger transitions, right through to
major transitions, where in fact, you have something like a clear cut reptile
being converted over a period of around one hundred million years, into a clear
cut mammal.
So it seems to me that if one
divorces the scientific point of view (and after all, the statement was that we
would be discussing the scientific evidence, discussion it from the scientific
point of view.), if one divorces the philosophical, if one gets away from this
common notion that what evolution means is an atheistic interpretation of the
Universe. It doesn’t mean that [many
would disagree with you!]. That is the
philosophy of materialism. If one gets
away from that, one realizes that there is a multitude of evidence for
evolution. And, in fact, the situation
is such that biology would consist of a series of isolated studies that have
very little relation to each other, if you take evolution, as the scientist
understands it, out of biology. [Not true! Biology did well for generations without
evolutionary naturalism.] It is the
scientific theory of evolution, which ties biology into a single, recognizable,
whole. Thank you very much.
Return to the top of this Essay
This page last updated 03/01/2006
Back to the Revolution Against Evolution home page
Evolution at Conservapedia
The Creation Bookstore
Revolution Against Evolution TV Show
Creation Essays
Seminars and Class Schedule
Online Books
Other online resources
Frequently Asked Questions
The Amy Foundation Website
Mount Hope Church
The Revolution Against Evolution has had over one million visitors since 4/28/97.
. 
. Contact rae.org or send comments
about this page HERE.