EVOLUTION AND ORIGINS

EVOLUTION AND ORIGINS
Possibly no topic is debated as extensively in various forums today as the
question of how man originated.
originated. The night before I wrote these words, our local television news
showed for several minutes two creationists trying to prove that the discovery
of some human bones made the discovery of some human bones
minutes of two creationists trying to prove that the discovery of some human
bones made naturalistic evolution impossible.
naturalistic evolution impossible. Court cases concerning the teaching of
"scientific creationism" in the public schools have given national publicity to
this
have given national publicity to this issue. The debate on inerrancy has
necessarily included discussion of the historicity of the
about the historicity of the creation account in Genesis. Various views
struggle for acceptance even among evangelicals.
evangelicals.
I. VIEWS CONCERNING THE ORIGINS
A. Evolution
Evolution simply means a change in any direction. There is, of course, a
completely legitimate use of the word, as, for example, in the following
sentence
of the word, as, for example, in the following sentence: "There has been
considerable evolution in the field of communications in this century.
communications in this century. But when the word is used in relation to
origins, it means much more than change or development.
or development. It includes the idea of origin by natural processes, both the
origin of the first living substance and the origin of new species.
of new species. It theorizes that several billion years ago, chemicals in the
sea, upon which the light of the sun and cosmic energy
and cosmic energy acted upon, by chance became one or several one-celled
organisms, which since then have developed by mutations and
then have developed by beneficial mutations and natural selection into all
living plants, animals, and people,
animals, and living people.
No one denies that there has been change and development in many areas
of creation. However, for evolutionists
this development has also included the production of new species of more
complex and intricate forms that have evolved from less complicated
substances.
from less complicated substances. None of this requires the idea or activity
of God. Charles Darwin said, "I would not
I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of natural selection if it required
miraculous additions at any stage of
descent" (R. E. D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After [London: Paternoster
Press, 1948], p. 86). Julian Huxley also
that "to admit a divine interference in these exchanges of matter and energy
at a particular time in the earth's history is unnecessary and unnecessary.
history of the earth is unnecessary and illogical" Evolution in Action [New
York: New American Library, 1964], p. 20).
Regarding the origin of man, evolution teaches that man evolved over long
periods of time by the action of mutations and natural selection.
the action of mutations and natural selection from simpler and cruder forms
which in turn had evolved from other forms which ultimately came from other
forms.
forms that ultimately came from an original creature composed of one cell.
Obviously, the bases of naturalistic evolution are science and faith.
B. Theistic evolution
Theistic evolution holds that God directed, used, and controlled the
processes of natural evolution to "create" the world and everything in it.
everything in it. Generally this view includes the idea that the days of Genesis
1 were ages, that evolutionary processes were involved in the "creation" of
the world and all that is in it.
processes were involved in the "creation" of Adam, and that the earth and
pre-human forms are of great antiquity.
antiquity.
Darwin declared that the supernatural was unnecessary in his theory. The
creationist insists that naturalistic evolution is excluded in this view.
naturalistic evolution is excluded in this view. So theistic evolution tries to
ride on two horses (evolution and creation)
which go in opposite directions.
The creation of Eve poses a special problem for theistic evolution. It is
claimed that Adam arose from a pre-existing form
to which God implanted the breath of life, but that Eve did not come from a
pre-existent form of life. She was
a special act of creation. And if she was, why not also Adam?
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), a Roman Catholic Jesuit priest and
paleontologist tried to synthesize evolution with traditional Christian
theology.
with traditional Christian theology. Evolution stands as his central theme,
although his ideas also present aspects of process philosophy.
aspects of process philosophy.
Strictly speaking, the only thing that theistic evolution has to admit in order
to be theistic is that there was a supernatural Being
who was the invisible force that began the long process of evolution. As a
general rule one would find this position
among Roman Catholics, liberal Christians, and neoorthodox thinkers. But
many who fall into the general category of
general category of theistic evolutionists perceive God as involved not only
at the beginning of the process but also at various points along the way.
various points along the way. That God intervened in the creation of the
higher strata of life throughout geologic history (e.g. vertebrates, birds,
mammals, and man). But He also allowed and utilized the processes of
naturalistic evolution over long periods of geologic time.
naturalistic evolution during long periods of geological time. This view is
known as progressive creationism or threshold evolution.
progressive or threshold evolution, and is often connected with the concept
that the days of Genesis 1 are equivalent to ages.
Though I would place progressive creationism in the general category of
theistic evolution, some evangelicals
who favor progressive creationism would argue that it should actually be
classified under creationism. However, the
kind of evolution implied by progressive creationism is naturalistic, and this
would require a prolonged time span; so the view that I believe to be
view, which in my judgment is misnamed, is a form of theistic evolution.
Theistic evolution rests on the foundations of the Bible and science.
C. Creation
Although there are variations within the broad category of creationism, the
main characteristic of this view is that the Bible is its only basis.
is that the Bible is its sole basis. Science can contribute to our understanding,
but it can never control or change our interpretation of Scripture to make it fit
the Bible.
our interpretation of Scripture to suit its recommendations. As far as man is
concerned, creation teaches that God created the first man.
creation teaches that God created the first man in His image from the dust
of the ground and implanted in him His own breath of life (Genesis 1:27 and
2:1).
(Genesis 1:27 and 2:7). No subhuman creature was involved, nor was any
process of evolution.
Creationists hold different views as to the days of creation, but in order to be
a creationist one must believe that the biblical account of the creation of the
earth is a creationist.
has to believe that the biblical account is in fact historical and that Adam was
the first man.
One view holds that the biblical account of the creation of Adam and Eve
tells us only what happened in the Garden of Eden rather recently and that
Adam was the first man.
of Eden rather recently and that it tells us nothing of what was happening in
the rest of the world. Therefore,
while Adam was the result of a special creation by God, creatures in other
parts of the earth were evolving over long periods of time.
evolving over long periods of time. That is, Adam was an island of creation
in the middle of a sea of evolution.
I do not consider that this view falls into the general category of creationism,
because it is not understood that Adam was the first man of creation.
that Adam was the first man from whom all mankind descended.
II. THE PROPOSITION OF EVOLUTION
We have to analyze in more detail the proposition of evolution in answer to
the question of origins and highlight some of the problems of this proposition.
some of the problems with that proposition. Many good books have been
written on this subject to which one can refer for more details.
can refer to for more details. Among the ones I would recommend are those
written by Henry M. Morris, Bolton Davidheiser
(Evolution and Christian Faith [Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed,
1969]), and A. E. Wilder Smith.
A. The principles of evolution
Evolution rests on several basic principles. (1) Planets and stars resulted
from a great explosion of compressed protons and neutrons.
compressed and rotating protons and neutrons. This compressed dense
mass continues to move away from the original nucleus at fantastic speeds.
fantastic speeds. An alternative to this principle is the so-called steady-state
theory, which believes that matter is continually being created in space and
that it is
continuously being created in space and that this process has been going on
for an infinite period of time.
(2) Life originated entirely by accident, when a single cell of lifeless matter
arose.
(3) Having thus accidentally begun, all other living organisms have evolved
from that first one
and from subsequent simpler forms of life, which gradually increased in
complexity. This development also
produced man.
B. The process of evolution
If one were to reduce the process to a formula, it would look like this:
M(utations) + S(choice) N(atural) × T(time) = Evolution. This
formula expresses the mechanism of evolution.
Mutations constitute the explanation of evolution. Mutations are small,
sudden changes in the DNA code of genes that are transmitted
DNA code of genes that are transmitted to offspring causing them to differ
from their parents in marked characteristics.
That is, a small change appears in an organism, which is transmitted to the
offspring. Later, fortuitously,
another small change appears, and so on. If enough of these occur and if
they are preserved, then the organism will become more complex and evolve
into a more complex organism.
will become more complex and evolve into a different organism, and so on.
In this way all existing forms of life
were produced from the original simple, single cell. The importance of
mutations as the explanation of how evolution occurred cannot be
overemphasized.
evolution cannot be overemphasized. Julian Huxley wrote: "It is not only an
effective agency of evolution, it is the only effective agency of evolution.
it is the only effective agency of evolution" (Evolution in Action, p. 35).
Natural selection is the mechanism that preserves the changes caused by
mutations. When a change occurs that is
beneficial to the organism, natural selection preserves that change simply
because it is beneficial. Any
harmful change would not be preserved, because natural selection would
cease to reproduce them because they would be useless. (A beneficial
mutation is one that increases the complexity of the organism.
(A beneficial mutation is one that increases the complexity of the organism).
It is important to remember that natural selection is
just that: natural. It is not selection in a laboratory or a greenhouse; it means
that process of selection in pure nature that supposedly eliminates harmful
mutations.
nature that supposedly eliminates harmful mutations and maintains
beneficial ones. By this process the descendants
of organisms are gradually improved, if given enough time.
Therefore, time, over long periods, is necessary to evolution. Since
mutations do not occur frequently,
there will have to be a long time for enough beneficial mutations to occur,
and then they will be preserved by natural selection, so that
by natural selection, thus effectively changing organisms into more and more
complex ones.
To shorten the time required, some evolutionists propose "bursts" of
mutations, occurring almost simultaneously, which would almost
immediately
simultaneously, which almost immediately effect several beneficial changes
in an organism; thus shortening the time required for the beneficial changes
to occur.
thus shortening the time required for the necessary changes to occur.
III. THE PROBLEMS OF EVOLUTION
A. Problems in mutations
Can mutations accomplish all that they supposedly do? Consider the
following:
1. Mutations are rare and almost always harmful. In the fruit fly experiment,
where mutations were produced by artificial means, it is estimated that only
one
mutations were produced by artificial means, it is estimated that only one fly
in a million developed a mutation. In addition,
Theodosius Dobzhansky, who conducted many experiments with the fruit fly,
acknowledged that "most
of the mutants ... are more or less disadvantageous" and that "the deleterious
character of most mutations seems to be a very serious difficulty" (Evolution,
Evolution, p. 4).
a very serious difficulty" (Evolution, Genetics, and Man [New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1955], p. 150).
2. Where do new genes come from? No mutation has ever produced a new
species or a new organ or system in an existing species.
in an existing species. However, this had to happen if evolution is valid.
Protozoa, for example, have no teeth,
Where, then, did the genes that produce teeth come from if we have evolved
from protozoa?
protozoa? Mutations have to do with changes in existing organisms; they do
not produce new organisms.
But somewhere and somehow in the process new species had to be
produced, and even new systems
(such as the circulatory system or the atrial system) had to be produced
within existing species.
Here is an example of how evolution wrestles with this question. "If mutation,
which is the only form of
heritable change for which we have definitive evidence, is always change in
genes already present, it would seem at first glance that we have no basis
here at all for
at first glance that here we have no basis at all for understanding the
evolution of innovations in body organization.
For their evolution, certainly, we need new hereditary factors, not changes in
those already present. But we have
to remember that the conditions in the body and in hereditary matter are
extremely complex. Possibly changes
in the distribution of enzymes in the body, if they were to be effected at all,
might cause new differences in the rate of growth of parts of the body.
the rate of growth of body parts, as, for example, in part of the frontal bones
of the skull, which would result in the early evolution of horns.
in the early evolution of horns. It is difficult to see how the redistribution of
their enzyme could be achieved by the
mutation of a gene, but, in view of the complexity of conditions in the body,
it may be possible. It is also not impossible
that new genes can evolve. We know that genes can reduplicate within
chromosomes, and that, when that has
When that has occurred, one member of such a pair may be so altered by a
mutation as to give us what is functionally a new gene.
functionally a new gene.
"These suggestions are purely hypothetical. For the present we can say no
more than that innovations of organization
undoubtedly occur in evolution; that they are essential to the increase in
complexity that is associated with progress
in evolution; that we have no precise knowledge of the details of their
evolution" (G. S. Carter, A Hundred
Years of Evolution [New York: Macmillan 1958], pp. 184-5).
This seems to be more an exercise in faith than in fact!
B. Problems in natural selection
Does natural selection guarantee improvement? Of course, it must;
otherwise, if an inferior lineage were to survive, it would soon die out survive,
it would soon die and there would be no evolution at all. But the problem is,
will natural selection achieve this?
will natural selection do it? Laboratory selection might do it, but will natural
selection do it? One evolutionist acknowledges this problem:
"In fact, natural selection with evolutionary consequences has been
observed only where men have
created drastically new conditions which impose intense selection pressure"
(J. B. S. Haldane, Nature, March 14, 1959, p. 51).
March 14, 1959, p. 51).
Isolated mutations: Would natural selection recognize the value of a single
mutation while waiting for the occurrence of other mutations that would be
necessary for the
other mutations that would be necessary for the production of a new system
in the organism? In the evolution of the eye,
for example, if the mutation that made the tear duct occurred first, would
natural selection maintain it in the organism until the other mutations
occurred?
would natural selection maintain it in the organism until the other mutations
that produced the eyelashes, the eyelids, the cornea, the lens, and so on
occurred?
Or would an organism that had a tear duct but not the other components of
a visual system fail to reproduce natural selection simply because it did not
have a tear duct?
of a visual system, simply because it was useless without the other
elements?
3. Circular argument. The interaction of mutations and natural selection to
explain evolution is a circular argument.
argument. Julian Huxley admitted it clearly: "On the basis of our present
knowledge, natural selection must produce genetic adaptations; and genetic
adaptations must produce genetic adaptations.
genetic adaptations; and genetic adaptations are supposed to be the
evidence of the efficacy of natural selection."
(Evolution in Action, p. 43).
C. Problems with the length of time required
Although mutations are rare and deleterious, and although natural selection
would in all likelihood fail to breed a
lineage mutant, it seems possible to the layman that given enough time
anything, even evolution, can occur.
Huxley explains: "All living things are of the same antiquity: they can trace
their lineage back about 2 billion years.
years ago. With that expanse of time available, small adjustments can easily
be made to contribute to the
adaptations; and small changes in gene frequency between one generation
and the next can multiply to produce radical improvements.
multiply to produce radical improvements and entirely new kinds of
creatures" (Evolution in Action, p.41).
But such a claim can be refuted by putting it to the test. "The chances are
one in 10,161 that not one usable protein would have been produced by
chance.
usable protein would not have been produced by chance in all the history of
the world, employing all the appropriate atoms of the earth at the fantastic
rate described.
of the earth at the fantastic rate described. This is a numerical expression
containing 161 zeros. Possibly it would be
good to remember that even if one molecule were obtained, it would not help
in any way in arranging the second molecule of
protein molecule unless there was a precise duplication process. Even if
there were such a process, many other kinds of protein would be needed
before there can be a
kinds of protein before there could be a living organism. In the minimal
Morowitz cell, the 239 protein molecules required include at least 124 protein
molecules.
required include at least 124 different species of protein" (James F.
Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible?
Impossible? [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973], pp. 109-10). Others have
come to similar conclusions regarding the
probability of randomly forming a protein molecule. The French scientist
Lecomte du Nouy said it was a one in 10,243 chance.
chance in 10,243. Sulzo mathematician Charles E. Guye calculated it as one
chance in 10,160. Murray Eden of
MIT, and Marcel Schutzenberger, of the University of Paris, both concluded
that their digital computers proved that evolution is impossible (Mathematical
that evolution is impossible (Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian
Interpretation of Evolution, edited by P.S. Moorhead and
P.S. Moorhead and M.M. Kaplan [Philadelphia: Wistar Institute Press, 1967],
and du Nouy's Human Destiny [London:
Longmans, Green and Co., 1947], p. 34).
Whereas probability is expressed by a fraction (e.g., 1 in 5 million times), and
when the fraction is as small, as these are, for the
small, as these are, for the random production of a protein molecule, then
the mathematician would state that the
probability of its occurrence is zero. The evolutionist would probably point
out that there is still a chance, albeit an infinitesimal one, that it could occur.
infinitesimal, of evolution taking place because of the billions of years it
requires. However, even billions of years would not
of years would not diminish the probability enough to bring it within reach of
reasonable possibility. Davidheiser
tested the well-known statement that if a million monkeys were allowed to hit
the keys of a million typewriters for a million years, a million monkeys would
be allowed to hit the keys of a million typewriters for a million years.
typewriters for a million years, they could by chance produce a copy of a
Shakespearean play.
By means of a controlled experiment with only capital letters, in which typing
is done continuously at a uniform speed, and only the first verse of Genesis
is required.
speed, and requiring only the first verse of Genesis, he demonstrates that a
million monkeys would never write Genesis 1:1, let alone a play by
Shakespeare in billions of years (Evolution and
would never write Genesis 1:1, let alone a Shakespearean play in billions of
years (Evolution and Christian Faith, pp. 362-33).
Christian Faith, pp. 362-3). Even to write the first line of Hamlet ("Ber: Who's
There?") would require on the average of several repeated experiments 284
million years.
of several repeated experiments 284 billion years, a period considerably
longer than it took evolution to do all that it is supposed to have done.
evolution to do all that it supposedly did.
The obvious conclusion from this is simply that it requires an unbelievable
amount of faith to believe that evolution
could have randomly originated all the life that has ever existed and now
exists.
Could life have evolved randomly? The probability of forming a protein
molecule by chance is one in
10,243 (10 raised to the power of 243), which is a one followed by 243 zeros.
This fraction is so small, one could say that the probability is zero.
say that the probability is zero. One possibility in:
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
D. Problem with the second principle of the law of thermodynamics.
This second principle of thermodynamics states that although the energy in
the cosmos remains constant, the amount of energy available to do useful
work is always dissipating.
available to do useful work is always decreasing (and entropy, the measure
of unavailable energy, is increasing).
Everything, then, is moving toward less order or greater chaos. This, of
course, runs directly contrary
to what evolution teaches. In fact, in a debate in which I was participating, I
heard an evolutionist readily remark that evolution was "the big one.
easily that evolution was "the great exception to the second principle".
How do evolutionists react to the seemingly insoluble problem posed by the
second principle?
Some say that the long time since creation allows anything, particularly
evolution, to occur.
But remember, during those billions of years entropy was increasing, the
principle was not interrupted.
There are those who point out that there seem to be exceptions to the
principle. This may well be true, but they can only be temporary and at the
expense of a
be temporary and at the expense of an increase in entropy somewhere else
in the environment.
Some claim that the earth is an open system and takes its energy from the
sun. But the infusion of solar energy is
useless unless there is some kind of engine within the elements on which it
shines that can convert that energy so that it reverses the second principle.
energy so that it reverses the second principle. For example, the sun can
shine on concrete blocks for a thousand years and never produce additional
or mutated blocks.
never produce additional or mutated blocks, because there is no mechanism
within the blocks to convert that energy.
energy. There has to be a proper conversion process as well as a preprogrammed pattern to work by,
before solar energy can reverse the second principle. Or as one evolutionist
asked, "How, when there was no life, did life come into existence?
life at all, did substances come into existence, which today are absolutely
essential to living systems78
which, however, can only be formed by those systems?" (Harold B. Blum,
Time's Arrow. Blum, Time's Arrow and
Evolution [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968], p. 170).