Special Creation and the Fossil Record: the Central Fallacy

Special Creation and the Fossil Record: The Central Fallacy

KennethR. Miller Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/44/2/85/39665/4447414.pdf by guest on 01 October 2021

T HE PROPONENTS of modern-day "scientific"cre- Predictions of Scientific Creationism ationism maintain that the "creation model" fits the facts of the fossil record more directly than does the so-called To begin with, what do special creationists say the "evolution model." This assertion, which is at the base model would predict about the nature of the fossil record of claims that special creation is a legitimate alternative As an authorityon the special creation model, I will quot scientifictheory to evolution, is absolutely false. It survives from Dr. Duane Gish, Associate Director of the Sa in creationist literature intended for general audiences Diego-based Institute for Creation Research (ICR). D mainly because of a number of fallacies and semantic Gish is the author of numerous books and articles o& tricks which vanish quickly when the "creationmodel" is special creation, including two articles which have ar formulated in specific terms and criticallyexamined. peared in American Biology Teacher (Gish 1970; Gis' Recent court cases in California and Arkansas have 1973). In his 1973 article, Dr. Gish makes the followin highlighted the claims of a number of groups throughout assertions regarding the two models: the country that "special"creation, or "scientific"creation should be given equal time with the theory of evolution Creation Model Evolution Model in the teaching of high school biology. The concept of By acts of a creator. By naturalistic,mechanistic "equal time" for the two models is predicated on the processes due to properties notion that scientific creationism is a genuinely valid inherent in inanimate matter. scientific theory, and upon the claims of its proponents Creation of basic plant and Originof all living things that it represents an adequate means of explaining and animal kinds with ordinal from a single living source, interpreting the facts of natural history. In this article I characteristicscomplete in which itself arose from will attempt to discuss the claims of special creationists firstrepresentatives. inanimate matter. Originof each kind from an ancestral with regard to the fossil record, and will try to see if their form by slow, gradual change. assertion that the fossil record supports special creation Variation and speciation Unlimited variation. All at least as well as evolution is justifiedin fact. limited within each kind. forms genetically related. Kenneth R. Milleris assistant professor of biology And, he says that these models would allow the fol- at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912. His previous teaching experience includes lowing predictions to be made about the fossil record: posts at Harvard University and University of Colorado. Dr. Miller received his B.S. degree Creation Model Evolution Model (biology) from Brown University and his Ph.D. degree (biology) from University of Colorado. Sudden appearance in great Gradual change of simple His special research interests include the organi- variety of highly complex forms into more and more zation and function of biological membranes', forms. complex forms. the function of the photosynthetic membrane in Sudden apearance of each Transitionalforms linking the light reaction of photosynthesis, and experimental techniques in created kind with ordinal all categories. No sys- high-resolution electron microscopy. He is a member of AAAS and the American Society for Cell Biology, and has published in many profes- characteristicscomplete. tematic gaps. sional journals. Dr. Millerdebated Henry Morris (Institutefor Creation Sharp boundaries separating Research) in April 1981, and will be active in several evolution/special major taxonomic groups. No creation debates in the coming year. His extracurricularinterests include transitionalforms between contemporary fiction, softball and swimming, and the Boston Red Sox. higher categories.

SPECIAL CREATION 85 Like any good scientist, he then says, "Let us now Quoting again from well-known scientists, Gish argues compare the known facts of the fossil record with the pre - that gaps in the fossil record are the rule rather than the dictions of the two models." As you might have guessed, exception. On this point he is on firm ground indeed, in the comparison which follows, the facts seem to fit supported quite recently by such first-rate scientists as the creation model most directly. This kind of treatment Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge who have sug- of the facts of the fossil record is the sort of thing which gested that the nature of the fossil record, with frequent one sees again and again in creationist literature. But it gaps and discontinuities, illustrates the rough and jerky contains two very serious fallacies-one of which evo- pace of evolutionary change. Finally (and very much in lutionary biologists spot quite quickly and are generally triumph), Gish discusses the lack of fossils showing the well-prepared to argue against-but another fallacy, a evolutionary origin of higher plants: fatal one, exists in this analysis which evolutionary bio- Concerningthe plant kingdom,the followingremark of logists generally have been slow to realize. It is this second E.J.H.Corner (1961) of the CambridgeUniversity botany flaw which is absolutely fatal to special creation, and school, is refreshinglycandid: "Much evidence can be ad- hence has been strategicallyavoided by its proponents. duced in favorof the theoryof evolution-frombiology, bio- We will take a look at what special creationists say about geographyand paleontology,but I stillthink that to the un- in the fossil record, and see where both of these flaws are prejudiced,the fossil recordof plantsis favor of special creation."(Gish 1973) to be found. Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/44/2/85/39665/4447414.pdf by guest on 01 October 2021 And further: "Now, creationists what CreationistCharacterizations of the ask: better de- scription of the fossil record could one expect, based on Fossil Record the predictions of the creation model?" (Gish 1973) The first point that Gish makes is that the major living Indeed! Gish seems to have made a strong case for the groups have appeared suddenly in the fossil record: "creationmodel"! But has he really? From all appearances,then, based on the known facts of The Response of Evolutionists the historicalrecord, there occurred a suddengreat outburst of lifeat a highlevel of complexity.The fossilrecord gives no The reaction now of most experienced evolutionary evidence that these Cambriananimals were derivedfrom biologists, when confronted by such assertions, is to chal- preceding,ancestral forms. Furthermore, not a single fossil has been found that can be considereda transitionalform lenge them directly. The notion that no transitionalseries betweenthe majorgroups, or phyla.(Gish 1973) are found in the fossil record is simply not true, and, in fact, the best example of such a transition is the evolu- This general outline of the fossil record is argued not tion of primitive mammals from reptilianforms (Cromp- merely in Gish's own words, but by well-chosen quotes ton and Parker 1978). In addition, Archaeopteryx is in from a number of eminent evolutionary biologists, among fact a perfect transitionalform! The skeleton of Archaeop- them Neville George and George Gaylord Simpson. teryx is entirely reptilian in character, and it would have Continuing, Gish states: been classified as a reptile were it not for the fact that The remainderof the historyof life reveals a remarkable impressions of feathers have luckily been preserved on absence of the many transitionalforms demandedby the some of the fossils. Furthermore,despite the assertions of [evolutionary]theory. There is, in fact, a systematicdefi- Gish that these feathers are fully modern in every respect, ciency of the transitionalforms between the higher cate- the feathers of Archaeopteryx lack the quill impressions gories,just as predictedby the creationmodel. (Gish1973) which attach the flight feathers of modern birds to the Considering the supposed evolution of the vertebrate bone for secure anchoring. In other words, Archaeop- classes, Gish explains why Ichthyostega cannot be con- teryx looks like a bipedal reptile which had developed sidered a transitional form between fishes and amphib- feathers. Can one imagine anything more transitional? ians (he says it is already of the amphibian type). Gish Similar arguments can be, and of course have been, also disposes of the excellent transitional series between made on every other point Dr. Gish makes about the reptiles and primitivemammals as he writes: fossil record. For example, the large gaps between the Everyreptile, living or fossil,however, has at leastfour bones various phyla exist precisely because they represent the in the lowerjaw and only one auditoryossicle, the stapes. oldest divergences of living populations. Furthermore, Thereare no transitionalforms showing, for instance,three Dr. Gish fails to appreciate that when Gould and Eldredge or two jawbones or two earbones. (Gish1973) speak of "sudden"changes they mean changes occurring He dispenses with Archaeopteryx, a transitionalform over perhaps 50,000 years. That is indeed sudden in between reptiles and birds,by saying: geological terms, but not in the way in which Gish at- tempts to use it, implyingthe need for divine intervention All paleontologistsnow acknowledgethat it LArchaeop- to bringabout a "sudden"appearance or teryx] was a true bird.It had wings;it was completelyfea- transition. thered;it flew. It was not a half-waybird; it was a bird.No These problems with Gish's presentation (and the transitionalform with part-wings and part-feathershas ever writings of other creationists on the fossil record) repre- been found. (Gish1973) sent the first fallacy of which I spoke earlier, namely the

86 THE AMERICANBIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME44, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 1982 fact that many of their assertions (the supposed absence creation, all strata would contain the remains of present- of multicellularforms from pre-Cambrian fossils, the lack day life forms, including man, so that no forms would of evidence of slow and gradual evolutionary transition, "appear"suddenly in the fossil record. But the fact of the and the total absence of so much as a single transitional fossil record, as any student of natural history knows, is form) are simply and demonstrably wrong. On this entirely the opposite! The greatest diversityof living forms ground many excellent critiques of their work have is found in the most recent rocks, and many, many living appeared in this and other journals (Alexander 1978; things, including higher plants (and man) are recent Brush 1981; Callaghan 1980; Gurin 1981). appearances in the fossil record. By any analysis, the teaching of a single creation is not merely unsupported Creationism-The Central Fallacy by the evidence -it is disproven! However, to someone who is not an evolutionary biologist (my own training and research work is in cell "Flood Geology" to the Rescue? biology), the remarkable thing about the series of argu- How do the special creationists deal with this fatal ments the creationists have developed is not the first flaw? By resurrecting a thoroughly disproven concept flaw of which I have already spoken, but the second flaw: known as "flood geology." They suggest, in a nutshell, Gish has not correctly stated the predictions of special that all of the fossil record and all ancient plants and ani- creation! Rather, he has twisted those predictions so mals were formed during a single worldwide catastrophic Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/44/2/85/39665/4447414.pdf by guest on 01 October 2021 much that it is often impossible to see the model behind flood. That flood lasted at most 300 days, and produced the argument. Indeed, my first impression was that Gish the entire fossil record as we now know it! The details of and other creationists were arguing for a series of cre- this process can be found in several ICR publications, ative acts in which individual species were suddenly cre- including Scientific Creationism by Dr. Henry Morris, ated, without transitions and without intermediate forms. ICR Director. To a reader like myself, the remarkable I supposed, after reading about the gaps and the sudden message of this work is that the entire fossil record is appearances of major groups, that Dr. Gish was suggest- merely an illusion produced by the sorting-out action of ing that each major group was uniquely created during the flood. living history, and that each sudden appearance of a new form was an individual manifestation of a remarkable The geologiccolumn does not representthe slow evolution creative process. Several hundred creation events occur- of life over many ages, as the evolutionmodel alleges,but ring throughout the history of the planet might indeed be ratherthe rapiddestruction and burialof life in one age. in accordancewith the creationmodel. (Morris1974) used to explain many features of the fossil record. To my very great surprise, special creation suggests something The flaws and fallacies and contradictionsof this model totally different! are almost too numerous to recount. For example, every The basic tenets of special creation as they regard the single evolutionary series which has been documented origin of living things are quite clear. All living things, (and, gaps and all, there are hundreds of such series) according to ICR and other creationist literature, were would have to have been produced by the sorting action formed during a single creative period (itmay have lasted of the flood waters. In other words, when a remarkable a single week) which took place at least 6,000 but not series of evolving forms like the series leading to the more than 10,000 years ago. This basic tenet of creation- modern horse is considered, the special creationists must ist teaching is nowhere to be found in Dr. Gish's article, teach that all the various forms and species were in fact or, for that matter in his book, Evolution? The Fossils created at the same time. And further,that the illusion of Say No! Why is this aspect of scientific creationism mis- an evolutionary series was created by a differentialsorting sing from their critiques on evolution and the fossil reaction which accompanied the flood. More bluntly put, cord? For a very simple reason: Dr. Gish's own charac- Equus (the modern horse) tread water for a longer time terization of the fossil record contradicts the doctrine of a than Mesohyppus (an intermediate form), and Hyra- single creation! cotherium, a small ancestral form, was a poorer swimmer As an example, let us consider the sudden appearance still. Therefore, they have been buried in the imaginary of the angiosperms ("higherplants" as referred to earlier "sequence" from which we now dig them up. This in- in the quote from Corner) about 150 million years ago. credible mechanism must account not merely for the If one accepts the creationist characterization of the horse series, but for every evolutionary sequence known! "sudden" appearance of these plants, without apparent Such a mechanism for sorting out animals is incredible ancestral forms, then the concept of a single creation is enough, but even greater stretches of the imagination are immediately disproven. Why? Because if the angio- required to account for the late, "sudden" appearance of sperms (and, for that matter, the mammals, birds,reptiles, the higher plants (angiosperms). Did the higher plants amphibians, etc.) were all formed in a single creation "flee"to high ground, and hence appear only later in the event, then we should find all forms present all the way geological record of the flood? The more one considers through the fossil record. The oldest rocks should contain the fossil record, the more laughable the notion of flood the greatest diversity of life, and according to special geology becomes.

SPECIAL CREATION 87 Nevertheless, it is this system of flood geology upon herent arguments when they avoid being specific about which special creation must base its interpretationof the the nature of the "creation model." In rhetorical terms, natural history of this planet. For the special creationist, they have been successful in doing exactly that, and in flood geology is an embarrassment, a skeleton in the pretending that the fossil record is on the side of special intellectual closet. It is absolutely necessary, for special creation. However, when they are forced to discuss their creation to exist as a complete model, that flood geology model in detail, suddenly the facade collapses. The cen- be included to explain the overwhelming contradiction tral fallacy of special creation is exposed and the "scien- of the fossil record with a single creation. And yet, this tific theory" can be understood for what it really is: a lynchpin of the "creation model" is such an embarrass- religious doctrine supported only by a literal reading of ment that creationists writingon the fossil record avoid it the book of Genesis, and not by scientificfact! almost completely. Avoiding flood geology is good de- WhyScientific Creationism is a ReligiousIdea bating strategy,but it is dishonest science. It should be emphasized here that flood geology is not There is a remarkable point worth making here. The an optional feature of the "creationmodel." Rather, it is proponents of special creation claim to be scientists in- the only way in which the doctrine of a single creation terested in showing how valid facts of science can be in- event can be reconciled with the fossil record; therefore, terpreted by an openminded person in a way consistent

it is mandatory that flood geology be accepted along with with creation. To the genuinely openminded, the fossil Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/44/2/85/39665/4447414.pdf by guest on 01 October 2021 special creation. Does this flood geology in fact produce record is indeed consistent with direct divine intervention, agreement with the facts of geological science? It is not but of a different type. One could propose, for example, even close! In addition to requiring us to believe that that every appearance of a new living form represented every sequence of fossils was accidentally set in order by an act of divine intervention. In this "model," a creator the sorting action of the flood, it must further demand would have made a very small three-toed horse, then a that every single fossil-containing geological formation few million years later, a larger three-toed horse, then a was set down in the course of a single year! In the Grand few million years later, a one-toed horse, then eventually Canyon, for example, one can examine more than a mile our modern horse. Such a model would fit the fossil of sedimentary rock formations which must, according to record perfectly. Indeed, such a model could fit any special creation, have been formed during this single observation. Yet, this model is rejected by the special catastrophicflood. The succession of fossils in the canyon creationists. Is it rejected on scientific grounds, because it extends far into the past (600 million years), and well- does not fit the facts? Of course not. It is rejected because refined radiometric dating methods have been used to it does not match a literalreading of the Book of Genesis. confirm the dating of each layer. Special creationists are At the same time, the single creation doctrine (along with not fond of radiometric dating, but they must be called the great burden of flood geology) is embraced, despite upon to explain how a single flood could sort out the iso- its problems with facts, precisely because it does match topes of rubidium, strontium, potassium, argon, lead, the Book of Genesis. This point is why special creation or and uranium in such a way that each layer appeared just "iscientificcreationism" is a religious concept, even if it a little older than the one above it, at the same time that is presented without using the word "God" or quoting fossils were accidentally being formed into an illusion of scripture.It is religious, because religious doctrine and not an evolutionary sequence, stretching back over 600 mil- scientific fact has been used to make the basic choices lion years. Flood geology is a total failure, and was aban- which have formed the "model." doned by geologists more than 100 years ago. Today, When we discuss the theory of evolution, it is worth there is even more reason to reject it than there was in keeping in mind that there are really two questions which the last century. we are asking at the same time. These are: "What happened in the past?" and "How did it happen?" Even The Strategies of Creationists before the work of Charles Darwin,the answer to the first question was clear: life had changed; the life of the distant How then have special creationists attained their past was very different and had changed (evolved) into limited successes in advancing their alternative "model"? the life we know today. Darwin'scontribution was to sug- In part, their arguments have depended on not saying gest an answer to the second question -to provide a exactly what special creation really is-in not being spe- mechanism by which the record of changes could be cific about their model. When the fact that a fossil record understood for the first time. When we speak of evolu- of gaps and sudden appearances is contradictoryto spe- tionary theory, we are dealing with the question of cial creation is understood, one must then bring forward mechanism, and are very much on theoretical grounds. the hapless corpse of flood geology, and the whole However, the first question, "What happened in the "scientifictheory" collapses like a house of cards. This is past?" can indeed be addressed in factual terms, and we the great problem which the special creationists must deal need not be tentative in giving our students an answer. with. Dr. Gish and his colleagues at the ICR and the rest It is fair to say that we do not have a basic understand- of the special creation movement can only fashion co- ing of the mechanism of evolutionary change. Special

88 THE AMERICANBIOLOGYTEACHER, VOLUME44, NO.2, FEBRUARY 1982 creationists are therefore correct when they point out the BRUSH,S.G. 1981. Creationism/evolution:The case against inadequacies of our best evolutionary theories to explain "equaltime." The Science Teacher48(4):29. every facet of the living world. But it is also true that the CALLAGHAN,C.A. 1980. Evolutionand creationistargu- ments.American Biology Teacher 42(7):422. richness of the fossil record has given us a remarkably CROMPTON,A.W., and PARKER,P. 1978. Evolutionof the good picture of what the world of the past was like. And, mammalianmasticatory apparatus. American Scientist 66: the basic argument between special creation and evolu- 192. tion is centered on whether life has changed (evolved) GISH, D.T. 1970. A challenge to neodarwinism.American during the history of this planet, or whether it has re- BiologyTeacher 32(8):495. . 1972. Evolution?The fossils say no! San Diego:Cre- mained fixed throughout the ages. To that question the ation-Life Publishers. tens of millions of fossils in the museums of the world give . 1973. Creation,evolution, and the historicalevidence. only one answer: evolution took place. AmericanBiology Teacher 35(3):132. Evolution is a fact. GURIN,J. 1981.The creationistrevival. The Sciences 16. MILNE,D.H. 1981. How to debate with creationists-and References "win."American Biology Teacher 43(5):235. MORRIS,H.M. 1974. Scientificcreationism. San Diego: Cre- ALEXANDER, R.D. 1978. Evolution, creation, and biology ation-Life Publishers. teaching. American Biology Teacher 40(2):91. Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/44/2/85/39665/4447414.pdf by guest on 01 October 2021 Difficulties ... from p. 84 have underscored these findings. With this in mind, the Acknowledgment-This study was made possible, in part, by following summary is offered, along with suggestions for grants from the Spencer Foundation to the School of Educa- instruction: tion, University of Wisconsin-Madison and from the Univer- sity of Wisconsin Graduate School. 1. Most students will be able to solve monohybridcross problems although a subset of this group will be doing so in a non-meaningful fashion. That is, they lack ade- References quate knowledge of how meiotic division and segregation of chromosomes (and genes) are related to their manip- BHASKAR, R., and SIMON, H.A. 1977. Problem solving in semantically rich domains: An ulation of symbols in Punnett squares. example from engineering thermodynamics. Cognitive Science 1:192-215. 2. Even students who do monohybrid cross problems CLEMENT,J.J. 1979. Mapping a student's causal conceptions meaningfully may not be able to relate what they do in from a problem solving protocol. In Lockhead, J., and Clement, J.J. (eds.). Cognitive process a dihybrid cross problem to meiosis and gamete for- instruction. Phila- delphia: The FranklinInstitute Press. mation. The difficulty appears to be related to an alge- FINLEY, F.N., STEWART, J., and YARROCH, W. (in press) braic problem-solving method, which makes the identifi- Teachers' perceptions of difficultand important science con- cation of gamete genotypes less clear. Biology teachers tent for students to learn. must take steps to tie such algebraic methods to meiosis GREENO, J.G. 1978. Understanding and procedural knowledge in if are to mathematics instruction. Educational Psychologist meaningful problem solutions be reached. 12(3):262-283. 3. The difficulty that many students experience in . 1980. Trends in the theory for problem solving. In solving dihybrid cross problems was not related to their Tuma, D., and Reif, F. (eds.). Problem solving and education: Issues in teaching and inabilityto use combinatorial research. Hilldale, N.J.: Lawrence reasoning to generate gam- ErlbaumAssociates. ete genotypes. Their problem lay in not being able to indi- LARKIN, J.H. 1980. Teaching problem solving in physics: cate why combinations, other than correct combinations, The psychological laboratory and the practical classroom. were incorrect. This was taken to mean that what they In Tuma, D., and Reif, F. (eds.). Problem solving and educa- lacked was an adequate knowledge of genetics and tion: Issues in teaching and research. Hilidale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum meiosis and not the ability to correctly use combina- Associates. LIN, H. 1979. Approaches to clinical research in cognitive torialreasoning. process instruction.In Lockhead, J., and Clement, J.J. (eds.). 4. Students may understand complex processes such Cognitive process instruction. Philadelphia: The Franklin as segregation even though they do not attach the linguis- InstitutePress. tic symbol (thata teacher uses) to their understanding. NEWELL, A., and SIMON, H.A. 1972. Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 5. With few exceptions (see 4 above) students were SIMON, H.A., and SIMON, D. 1978. Individual differences in able to provide acceptable definitions of most concepts solving physics problems. In Siegler, R. (ed.). Children's used in instruction.However, they did have difficultyde- thinking: What develops? Hilldale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum scribing how concepts are related. The obvious sug- Associates. gestion for teachers, if their goal is to provide students STEWART, J. 1980. Appropriate research in biology education. American with a coherent view of genetics, is to make their instruc- Biology Teacher 42(8):484. WALKER, R.A., HENDRIX, J.R., and MERTENS, T.R. 1980. tion much more explicit in terms of concepts interrelation- Sequenced instruction in genetics and Piagetian cognitive ships. development. American Biology Teacher 42(2):104-105.

SPECIAL CREATION 89