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

Load more