Evolution or Creationism?

There is little doubt that of the two or three hot-button issues concerning education in the United States, the one we in Europe have the most difficult time understanding is the supposed debate over whether or not evolution has any scientific credence. Now the old argument about divinely inspired creation, today called Intelligent Design, but what was once known as Creationism, has reared its interesting head like that multi-headed creature spoken about in revelations.

And so the argument goes, God created everything and that is it. No other explanation is needed and any other logic or science that denies this is either (a) Satanically inspired, or (b) simply the musings of fools who refuse to understand that God created everything, from the Universe to the most complex beings on Earth.

Once this Creationism also argued that the earth was merely about 6,000 or so years old. It is difficult for me to get an exact number since different sources list different ages. However, Genesis is believed by some to show exactly how the earth and all living things existing here were created in six days, and then on the seventh day God rested.

Creationists have more or less changed their tune concerning what to call their ideas. Now they have decided that Intelligent Design is the way to go. It sounds so much more practical, and less religious, even though I would say that fostering their own religious ideology is what they want to replace sound scientific thinking. So, here goes. Some ideas about how Creationism and Evolution differ, and why proponents of each idea believe what they do.

OK, first of all we need to dispense with the usual take on the Theory of evolution. The word Theory in science does not mean just a good guess, as it does in the vernacular. It does mean an idea that has been proven time and again to have deep merit. Thus a theory (small "t" theory) about who murdered the Professor in the game Clue is a vernacular of, here's a few clues, now I'll guess the culprit.

A Theory (capital "T" Theory) in science is the result of hundreds, or even thousands or millions of bits of evidence that form a hypothesis, which after testing, much skepticism and a whole lot of scrutiny, becomes a basis for how something works in nature.

A Law explains to us that something works, such as how the Law of Gravity explains that we don't fly off into outer space on this whirling planet of ours because there is this thing called gravity which prevents such an occurrence. A law does not tell the specifics of the way it works: it merely tells us that these things exist, as proven without flaw or exception over and over again, and we pretty much generally agree that they do. An apple always drops from a tree on the surface of the Earth. Show me a case where, unaided by outside forces such as a cannon blast of horrendously powerful wind, where an apple falls up to the sky, and that will pretty much disprove the Law of Gravity. With evidence such as that, find me a person who does not believe that gravity works and I'll show you someone who is in great need of an education!

Thus Evolution did not become a Scientific Law because it was not reproducible. One could not recreate all the conditions on Earth that were common millions or even billions of years ago, unless one wishes to ruin the conditions that are present here, right now. However, each action of the past leaves clues, sometimes many, sometimes a few, which all lead to a logical and rather pointed conclusion. Yet by doing experiments it was shown beyond doubt that the building blocks of all life were indeed created in conditions similar to what we know existed in very ancient times.

In general, since there are several variations on this theme of Creationism, the basic idea of why a creator is needed boils down to a decision that some laws and observations rule out the ability of atoms and molecules to build up into more and more complex systems. A famous example is the application of Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics, also known as entropy, in which energy goes from a form able to do things, such as work, to a lower and less useful form of thermal energy, heat, which does no work. In a closed system, in which the energy within the system is the ONLY energy being used, this is indeed correct. If no new fuel is added to a steam engine burning coal, the engine will eventually run out of energy to make the engine work. If life were like this, then life itself would be impossible, because we, all of us who dwell on this planet, would constantly go from a state of having energy to a state of having none, and we would die.

Plants would not grow, babies could not be born, etc. However, the Earth, while it is a closed system of sorts, in that we have only the resources & atmosphere available to us in most cases, has a huge input of energy coming from the sun. Our planet only uses a small portion, a mere fraction of the available energy coming each day to warm the planet. Indeed, in an ideal system most of the sun's energy is reflected back out of the atmosphere. Otherwise we'd be a planet similar to Venus, in which huge amounts of energy are trapped there and cause routine temperatures of around 476 degrees Celsius. (Compared to Earth's mean temperature of about 14.6 degrees Celsius) 100 degrees Celsius boils water at sea level, so Venus is a most inhospitable place for Earthly life!

The second law of Thermodynamics isn't really relevant to the idea of Evolution because our system is indeed NOT closed as it would be in an experiment of thermodynamics. Energy is pouring in at a tremendous rate, and thus the idea that evolution is impossible because of entropy does not stand up to scrutiny. It is a non-factor.

Most Creationists will tell us that there are gaps in the fossil record that prove that Evolution did not occur.  Well, for some species there are indeed gaps that we may never find. No credible scientist will deny this.  Yet, in some species, there are no gaps. and indeed, every year heralds a new series of discoveries about species that are extinct in our times.

A man named Duane Gish was popular in Creationist circles some years back as a scientist who defied and denied Evolution could be true. He said that because of the
"huge gaps" in the fossil record, evolution was little more than a bold guess, a theory with a small "t", about how life came to be on Earth.  Well, he is wrong, and fossil records for entire species do indeed exist and conform with every expectation and prediction made by Darwin's model for Evolution made when the Theory was first proposed.

Let's look at the horse and its evolution throughout time. Creationists talk about "kinds" rather than species because they generally believe that God made all the animals in one fell swoop. Some may be extinct, but they were all once around living at the same time. Some people say that because Genesis can be traced back to the start of time, the entire Earth and everything on it is no more than about 6,000 years old. Some Creationists have dropped this idea, but it remains popular among those who tout this idea.

This is one that tickles me because we see the evolution of new species from old all the time. It is the "living Evolution lab" for those who want to see Evolution is all its splendor. Yes, new species are evolving!

The survival of the fittest that Darwin touted was not as repugnant to Creationists as were his other ideas, and for more than 150 years Creationists have been feeding us the idea that no new species have evolved, and therefore Evolution is a hoax. Is this true, though?  Are there no new species evolving from older species?  However sad for Creationists, we see them all the time and have modern records of these evolutions right at hand.

Let's look at the lowly wheat from which we make our daily bread.  Over the course of the past few centuries, a new genus called Tritocosecale (Tritacale) has produced many new species and is a very important agricultural plants.  There was no Tritocosecale (Tritacale) as we know it today in Biblical times. It was evolved over time to become a large genus with multiple species of what we today simply call wheat.  One could include barley, American corn (maize) and other plants that have evolved in the past thousand or so years.  Grapes, fruits, etc. are all products of ongoing Evolution. Science has proven this true and no amount of blathering will make it false, anymore than any amount of words will make The Law of Gravity suddenly disappear.

So the "there is no Evolution present today" argument is dead and buried. Evolution occurs!

More proof? A simple fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)has evolved into at least two separate species. One dines of Hawthorn nuts, while the other found its way into eating apples. this took place about 170 years ago. Like Darwin's Finches, which developed into several species over food pressure, this fly now exists in two well-known and distinct species that can not interbreed and have differing mating habits, food requirements and other differences that set them apart. Two species came form one, as Evolution predicts and demands that they do.

Want more proof? Dog lovers know that canine parvovirus evolved from feline parvovirus in the 1970's!

In short, there are hundreds and even possibly thousands of examples of evolution happening all around us, and as these events are examined, studied, recorded and tested, each of them has gone a long way toward proving that Evolution does indeed exist.

I was watching a program coming over the satellite from America where a well-known preacher was showing graphic and fascinating pictures of different landscapes and worn-cliffs, and occasionally a few fossils found at high altitudes such as the Himalayas.  This, he proclaimed, stabbed at the very heart of Evolution! There were species of clams and other bivalves found at tens of thousands of feet above sea level! That not only proved Noah's Flood, but also that Creation had been the sole mechanism for all life on Earth today! He even went on to state that finding these shells fossilized at such great altitudes showed that a huge die-out caused by the flood was now proven!

Well, I hate to break the bubble, but it proves nothing of the kind.  The shells found there were from warm, prehistoric oceans as the great number of warm weather and long-extinct plant fossils and plant impressions also found with those bivalves and other shelled animals. Also, one needs to ask, why were not fossils of animals and humans alive at the supposed time of Noah's Flood not also found there? Why was everything found only and strictly from a time of hot, humid climates? Would not one expect to find a few dead people who had floated up there to have been found? Did anyone find them? No.

Ah! But the Creationist will say, (in direct contradiction to the scientist who claims that the fossil record is still being discovered) - 'We have not had much time to find those things, but they are up there!'

OK, we'll give you time to find human and animal bones fossilized on Mount Everest. And we'll even give you time to prove that they came from the time of Noah, some 4,000 years ago. And of course to prove that you'll need to give up a second wrong belief you hold, that carbon dating and other types of dating of the past are incorrect.

Carbon and isotopic dating in its earliest days were indeed a difficult thing to handle, because they was new and many false (later corrected) ideas about radioactive isotopes were accepted as fact. Later corrections actually made the entire process much more accurate as factored against things like tree rings, sediment layers, etc.  There are also many other dating techniques that are today beyond question by all but the most die-hard radicals of Creationism.

Let's also look at some geological evidence. Now Geology is hardly a hot bed of Evolutionary science, and has no stake in this battle between Creationism and Evolution. Indeed, it's rather dull to most of us, although I find these following examples of dating the age of the Earth rather fascinating.

In Wyoming there is a place called the Green River Shales, where literally millions of microscopic varves (layers of alternating marlstone and kerogen) are found. Indeed, there are 6 million such layers in this one place alone! Now tests were done that showed the settling time of each microscopic layer was about 1 year. So the sum total of 6 million layers equals at least 6 million years. IF, as the Creationists would have us believe, these shales were the product of of a world-wide flood in Noah's time, then each layer would have to have been formed at 1 second each! A rather unusual and might I say impossible thing to believe? Especially since this is but a very small part of the story of the earth's crust.

There are many other such places around the world that have taken millions or even up to 4.5 billions of years to form as they are today, because the Earth is indeed around 4.5 billion years old.

Want more proof? OK, let's look at those once misunderstood radioactive isotopes that started billions of years ago. There are 48 radioactive isotopes with half lives from 1,000 to 100 million years. For those who do not know what a half-life is, it is the amount of time for one-half of the atoms to decay and become elements lower down on the periodic table. Thus Uranium decays and becomes less radioactive as time goes on. This is a well known and reproducible scientific fact that has no sane detractors. It works, and it always works in every experiment. End of story.

If the earth were but 6,000 years old, we would expect to see all 48 kinds of these isotopes present today. But we only find 23. The others have disappeared over the billions of years it would be expected and predicted that they would cease to exist in their original forms.

And believe it or not, there are some who claim, without proof, but merely to excuse this line of argument from their thinking processes, that God made these long-lasting isotopes disappear, and that God did this without ever telling about it in the Bible! I HAVE TO ASK: If it aint in the Bible, then how can it be true!?!?!?

OK, I am being sarcastic and that is not my point here. My point is to say to that some people have made claims that Intelligent Design, formerly known as Creationism, is a serious subject for study and that the scientific community, meaning those in that field who are not believers in ID or Creationism, have given it short shrift by refusing to study the claims.

First of all, this is a false notion perpetuated without merit. Creationism has been around for a very long time and has had more than amply opportunity to make good on its claims. However, while Creationist backers begin as does any good scientist, starting with a premise, in this case that God did all of this creation business, and now we will find proof of it, they veer away from good science when they are not willing to set aside their original premise if it proves untenable. Every scientists, on the other hand, is required by the rigors of credible scientific research to start with a premise that something may be true, test it, look for evidence but then must reject an idea if the proof and evidence to back it up are not there. In short, science does look to make an idea true in the absence of evidence, proof and other necessary requirements that back up the idea.

For example, it was once thought that giraffes grew long necks because they decided it was easier to get leaves off higher trees. Of course merely wishing or desiring a new effect such as that does not do anything to make it so. In truth, it was the giraffes with longer necks who were the more fit and therefore more able to breed, and thus giraffe necks became longer generation by generation. Ancient skeletal remains of giraffes show that originally their neck length was more like horses. After a few variations in neck length the trait became more and more common in giraffes and the shorter-necked giraffes lost out. That is consistent with Darwin's predictions.

Darwin's finches all came from the same basic ancestor, but variations changed them into differnt species, unable and unwilling to interbreed, until they were genetically different from both the common ancestor as well as other species of finches on the island. without this variation, Evolution would not be proved, but with it, Evolution as an idea, and later, backed by thousands and perhaps even hundreds of thousand of chains of evidence, was shown to be true. this is more than circumstantial evidence, as well. Observation after observation in the fossil record as well as in our own time has shown Evolution at work. Thus far Creationists have provided no incontrovertible proof of their claims.

If there is indeed a Creator, a God behind all of this, it is not the place of science to either prove or disprove that notion. It is up to religious leaders, thinkers and philosophers to provide evidence of I.D. Thus far, even using some practices which resemble science but which fail the test of being correct science, they have failed to do so, and yet they will tell us that their ideas are worthy of study. Yes, some who have called themselves scientists have provided some ideas for thought, but in the end, each and every one of their ideas has been disproved. Sorry, but that is the truth of it. It is not that scientists are rejecting looking at the ideas brought forth, it is that the Creationists are rejecting sound, scientific and valid denial of their alleged evidence.

If this were a court case Intelligent Design would be rejected on lack of merit. The evidence does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Evolution is a sound, true version of how the species of the Earth came to be, and neither does it provide for enough evidence to merit going forward with the case for Creationism or Intelligent Design.

I understand that many people have made up their minds on this subject, either for or against Evolution and Creationism, but I stand with those who say that while Evolution has the huge preponderance of proof, evidence and observation on its side, all scientific Theories must be constantly revamped to make them more correct. Evolution is not a finished Theory, but it is basically sound and has stood the long and difficult test of time. Remember that at first, and for many decades afterward, it was not embraced by the scientific community. many people, using many criticisms, did not think it made sense. But as more and more evidence in favor of it was produced, more and more scientists became aware that it was basically a sound Theory and was worthy of study. Since Darwin's time no evidence has been found that refutes the basic Theory of Evolution, while millions upon millions of bits and pieces of evidence have been found favoring the Theory.

In time, perhaps some of the most vocal critics of Evolution will be better able to reconcile their religious beliefs with sound science, much as the Catholic Church had to do in Galileo's and Kepler's time, and even as recently as Darwin's time, when fundamentalist reaction to the Theory of Evolution first began to deny it based upon solely Genesis and other chapters of the Bible.