EVOLUTION CREATION AND SCIENCE EVOLUTION CREATION AND SCIENCE http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp By FRANK LEWIS MARSH, Ph. D 1944 Professor of Biology, Union College, Lincoln, Nebraska Author of Fundamental Biology REVIEW AND HERALD PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION WASHINGTON, DC CONTENTS 1. Unjustified Authority 2. Evolution and Special Creation Defined 3. Scholasticism and Modern Theories of Origins 4. The Scientific Method 5. The Physical Basis of Life 6. Are Scriptural Theories of Life Beginnings Obsolete? 7. Processes of Variation in Organisms 8. Processes of Variations in Organisms-Continued 9. Hybridization 10. Modern Species and the Genesis Kind 11. Variation Since the Noachian Flood 12. Evidence From Classification and Morphology 13. Evidence From Embryology and Physiology 14. Evidence From Paleontology 15. Evidence From Geographical Distribution 16. Biological Adaptation 17. A Creationist’s Creed 18. Evolution or Variation Within the Kind? 19. Literature Cited 20. References 1 EVOLUTION CREATION AND SCIENCE 1. Unjustified Authority http://www.creationresearch.org This Book Is Dedicated To those who, in their search for truth, ignore unjustified authority in the field of science and keep their sincere minds alert to the recognition of facts regardless of where these may lead in the matter of conclusions. THIS IS A TIME of decision for the races of men. Social forces are at work testing whether individual liberty and freedom shall perish under the iron shod heel of the dictator or maintain their place in the sun through valiant battle. Both wishful thinking and material evidence assure us that man may still expect to enjoy his own house as his private castle and his own thought mechanism as the arbiter of his philosophy. Some of the threatening forces are offensively obtrusive mid generally recognized. Other enthralling elements are less generally recognized, although likewise plainly visible. The former components, largely political, are already being attended to by millions. The particular force of the latter group, to which this volume is addressed is nonpolitical and exists in the realm of natural science. It concerns freedom of thought and opinion in the matter of biological theories. In order to bring this force into the clear, let us outsider for a moment some animate object in our immediate environment. Because of his familiarity, let us select the common tree squirrel. For a number of reasons this squirrel is an intriguing animal. He may arouse our displeasure by showing a liking for things which we wish for ourselves, or he may draw our admiration through his lively actions and chic and mischievous appearance. Some see in him merely an object of the passing moment. Others observe the numerous adaptations he shows for his life in the trees, such as his quick eye, his supple muscles, his fine sense of balance, his facile feet with their all-important claws, and his flexible tail. This specific adequacy for his environment arouses questions in the minds of many observers which lead to long and careful study. This study will result in the formulation of a certain philosophy of life with regard to the tree squirrel. Although we live in an age of great complexity in which division and subdivision of everything are omnipresent, still, in regard to these philosophies, it is refreshing to find that they all fall into one or the other of two groups. The observer’s philosophy will either explain the nimbleness and alacrity of the squirrel in the tree as the result of an evolutionary process through which the animal has developed from a simple, possibly one-celled form into this efficient complexity, or will assume that the squirrel was created a squirrel by a Supreme Intelligence who shaped him to fit nicely into the arboreal environment. We would like to think that a man is free to hold to one or the other of these philosophies with impunity as concerns the judgments and harsh opinions of his fellow beings. However, such is not the case. There has developed in recent years among our scientists an attitude of mind which amounts to a considerable force at certain times in certain situations. This-attitude is epitomized in the following quotation from H. H. Newman: “There is no rival hypothesis [to evolution] except the outworn and completely refuted one of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudiced.” [1] Newman has kept the statement in the several editions of this book later than the one cited here. He evidently is sincere in his conclusion. A similar statement made by another zoologist while referring to what he considered a “pessimistic” view expressed by Bateson ( 1922) in the words, “the origin and nature of species remains utterly mysterious,” [2] runs as follows: “Be that as it may, the fact remains that among the present generation no informed person entertains any doubt of the validity of the evolution theory in the sense that evolution has occurred.” [3] Neither will we question the sincerity of this writer. It would seem that sincerity should always be admired, but when it assumes the mien of a dictatorial force directed against others, its merit is definitely questionable. To the casual reader these statements may appear quite harmless. But actually they evidence an attitude of mind among present-day scientists which is regrettable. It has been my opportunity to observe the effect of this attitude upon young scientists. Having studied for a number of years in a small private college, I had the privilege of continuing my studies over a period of eleven years in three universities in this country. My personal contacts with the scientists in these institutions were most pleasant and 2 EVOLUTION CREATION AND SCIENCE stimulating. However, during this experience I repeatedly observed the dissatisfaction in the minds of students over the existing “proof” for evolution. The thing which repeatedly won them over to acceptance of the theory was sheer weight of authority on the part of scientists through a not always highly refined method of browbeating. If the young aspirant was to keep face with the more seasoned scientists, he was obliged to accept the evolution theory. In more than one public institution of higher learning in this country the candidate for a higher degree in science must at least claim to hold to the evolution theory of origins before he is considered to possess an acceptable scientific attitude and to be of sufficient caliber to be admitted to the final examinations. I wish to say here to the praise of the institutions I attended that such narrow-mindedness was not shown in them. All that was required was that a man present justifiable reasons for his position. The lack of this truly scientific attitude among the scientific body in general is a deplorable situation. It is not so much premeditated and deliberate, I believe, as it is the natural result of a man in an all-absorbed manner gluing his eye to one very small portion of the natural world and becoming confused in the matter of what facts nature actually presents and what things, in the light of his theory, he wishes it would and believes it does present His ardor for his opinion then leads him to trample roughshod over any who may entertain opinions differing from his. Whether I am an evolutionist or a special creationist does not matter for the moment. The situation which warrants the appearance of another more or less philosophical book in the field of science is the prevalence of this unjustifiable worship of authority which is decaying the hardy manhood of modern scientists just as truly as it honeycombed individualism in medieval times. When reputable scientists speak to us of facts which they have observed we listen respectfully and appreciatively, but when one of them arises and tells us that some theory of origins has been so completely verified as to immediately mark any dissenter as an ignoramus, then his fellows should likewise arise and call his attention to the fact that lie is voicing an opinion on matters which even his experience and knowledge may not justify. When a man states his philosophy concerning such a subject as origins which may involve forces which it is impossible to measure accurately, and in the same breath brands anyone who holds a different philosophy as a vain pretender to knowledge, my Quaker and Huguenot forebears arise and beckon to me to say a word in justification of the opinions of the minority. The interests of truth demand a clear statement of this opinion even though such an elucidation is not a popular occupation in these days when knee bending to authority in matters concerning scientific theories of origins is the thing in order. Of the individual who keeps in mind the path that biological scientists have traveled during the twenty-two centuries since Aristotle (384-322 BC), a general mistrust of cocksureness of scientists over theories of origins is characteristic. Even a superficial perusal of this history reveals the relative nature of man’s conception of truth. A sad aspect of this matter is that we actually have no real ground for assurance that the modern conception of a self-designing and self-operating universe brings us any nearer to the correct explanation of the origin of life than did Aristotle’s conception of a divine intelligence which was responsible for law- bound existence. His philosophy seems to have satisfied the scientists of late antiquity, and it became a welcome ally to the pious aims of the medieval church. The latter found indications of similarity between it and the divine power of the Genesis record of creation and thus received an idea of the cause of the world, which was then held to be scientific.