A Refutation of God-Directed Evolution, the Bible and the BASF - 2
Historical Science Makes Accurate Predictions
In the section “Normal Operational Science Vs. Historic Science”, CVA expands on their argument asserting that
The study of microbes-to-man evolution is a “historic” form of science that is very different to normal “operational” science which is done in the present and involves observation, experimentation and can be repeated. Man’s achievements in the operational scientific fields gives us confidence to board an aeroplane, or undertake a MRI scan to see what maybe wrong with us. Thousands if not millions of people have done it before, and everyone has confidence that the science works because we can all witness it happening over and over again with our own eyes.
But historic science – what happened so long ago when no one was around to observe, test and repeat – is a completely different type of science. The problem for microbes-to-man evolution (along with cosmic, chemical, stellar and organic evolution) is that there is no way that anyone today can do an experiment, let alone a repeatable one, to prove microbes-to-man evolution, because we cannot directly observe the past, nor can we repeat it (as an experiment would require). Assumptions and interpretations always have to be made based on the limited evidence available (e.g. the fossil record), and consequently there is room for a significant amount of doubt. If the input assumptions are wrong then the derived conclusions will be wrong.
As CVA’s assertion that historical science is inferior to experimental science has already been shown to be incorrect[1] there is no need to engage in a lengthy refutation. One cannot repeat events in the past under laboratory conditions, but we are able to observe distant starlight, geological strata, fossils, and geological formations, create hypotheses and determine which is the most likely – either via the consilience of evidence or the presence of a ‘smoking gun’. CVAs argument is based on the fallacious YEC belief that the only reputable form of science is a caricature of experimental science.
Historical scientists not only can create hypotheses to explain what caused past events, but are able to make predictions and test them. One of the best examples comes from the discovery of the fossil Tiktaalik rosaea, the classic transitional form between fish and tetrapods that blurred the boundary so much that it was referred to as a ‘fishapod’. Vertebrate palaeontologist Neil Shubin, leader of the team that discovered it specifically predicted that a transitional fossil would be found at a particular geological time and in particular formations based on the already-existing palaeontological information. Neurologist Steve Novella, who frequently comments on science and critical thinking explains that
What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.
So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik – a “fishopod,” beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.[2]
Neil Shubin in his book Your Inner Fish reflects on the planning and execution of the mission to find such a transitional fossil, declaring
It took us six years to find it, but this fossil confirmed a prediction of paleontology: not only was the new fish an intermediate between two different kinds of animal, but we had found it also in the right time period in earth’s history and in the right ancient environment. The answer came from 375-million-year-old rocks, formed in ancient streams.[3] (Emphasis in the original)
This is not the only example of how evolutionary biology has been able to make good predictions. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, while the great apes have 24 pairs. Evolutionary biology states that there would have been a fusion of two chromosomes in the ancestor of humans, a prediction that has been confirmed by the discovery of an ancient fusion event in human chromosome 2.[4] Birds are likewise believed to have evolved from dinosaurs, which means that they should have inherited the genetic pathways needed for the production of teeth. Not only has this been confirmed, but tooth formation has been induced in bird embryos showing that these ancient inherited pathways can be reactivated.[5] Baleen whales have no teeth, but if they descended from toothed ancestors, we should expect to find not just evidence of tooth enamel genes in modern baleen whales, but ancestral whales with anatomical features. Both predictions have been confirmed, with the discovery of a transitional whale fossil that had both baleen and teeth, as well as tooth enamel pseudogenes in modern baleen whales. Further confirmation comes from the fact that tooth buds form in the jaws of baleen whale embryos which are later resorbed, something that we would predict if the genetic pathway for tooth formation had been inherited from a toothed ancestor.[6] The evolution of mammals from egg-laying ancestors leads to the prediction that we should find evidence for egg yolk production in mammalian genomes, and yet again this evolutionary prediction has been confirmed with the discovery of vitellogenin pseudogenes in mammals.[7] Bacterial flagella, which have been claimed by creationists as evidence of “irreducible complexity”. Conversely, evolutionary biologists state that it has evolved, and this leads to the prediction that proteins in the bacterial flagella would be related to proteins that have other functions. This prediction has also been verified.[8] Mammals and reptiles have different jaw joints, with the former and latter having articulations between the squamate and dentary, and quadrate and articular bones, respectively. Evolutionary biologists also assert that as mammals evolved from reptile-like ancestors, we should expect to find mammalian transitional fossils showing this evolutionary transition. While the evolution of the mammalian jaw joint and middle ear is complicated (the bones forming the reptile-like ancestral jaw joint migrated into the mammalian middle ear to form two of the three ossicles[9],[10]) we do have ample fossil evidence confirming this evolutionary transition.[11],[12],[13],[14],[15] One could readily multiply examples of successful predictions made by evolutionary biology but the point has arguably been demonstrated and the vacuity of the claims made by CVA made patently obvious.
Quote mining and Intellectual Dishonesty in Creationist Attacks
This YEC-derived belief that historical science is an inferior form of science has led CVA to make some astonishing mistakes such as quoting out of context Ernst Mayr, a highly-respected evolutionary biologist and one of the leading figures in the formation of modern evolutionary theory in the 20th century. CVA claims
Ernst Mayr, one of the 20th century’s leading evolutionary biologists fully acknowledged that Darwin introduced “historic” science and it follows a very different approach to normal operational sciences such as physics and chemistry.
“DARWIN INTRODUCED HISTORICITY into science. EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, in contrast with physics and chemistry, IS A HISTORIC SCIENCE—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.” (Emphasis in the original)
We have already seen that while historical sciences such as evolutionary biology differ from experimental sciences, they are in no way inferior, and are able to make testable predictions and explain natural phenomena. Given this, CVA’s quotation of Mayr comes across as a naïve attempt to show evolutionary biologists admitting to the epistemic inferiority of their science.
Damningly, it is also a classic example of quote-mining, in which someone is quoted out of context in order to misrepresent what they say. Creationists are notorious for intellectually dishonest behaviour such as this, and it is quite disappointing to see CVA do this. When quoted in context, Mayr is anything but damning evolution
These four insights served as the foundation for Darwin’s founding of a new branch of the philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology. Despite the passing of a century before this new branch of philosophy fully developed, its eventual form is based on Darwinian concepts. For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.
For example, three different scenarios have been proposed for the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous: a devastating epidemic; a catastrophic change of climate; and the impact of an asteroid, known as the Alvarez theory. The first two narratives were ultimately refuted by evidence incompatible with them. All the known facts, however, fit the Alvarez theory, which is now widely accepted. The testing of historical narratives implies that the wide gap between science and the humanities that so troubled physicist C. P. Snow is actually nonexistent—by virtue of its methodology and its acceptance of the time factor that makes change possible, evolutionary biology serves as a bridge.[16] (Emphasis mine)
What makes this misquotation particularly unforgiveable is that in the very next paragraph, Mayr documents three hypotheses to explain the fact of the extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous, notes (as we have already seen) that the asteroid impact hypothesis is the most likely, and then explicitly states that the historical sciences can be tested. Given that Mayr makes this comment in the next paragraph, either CVA has simply copied the Mayr quote from another source without checking the reference, which demonstrated sloppy, incompetent, amateurish researching ability, or they have deliberately quoted Mayr out of context, which is intellectually dishonest behaviour. Either way, CVA has demonstrated appalling research abilities and has lost the right to be taken seriously as a credible commenter. Given this, one would be entirely justified in dismissing CVA’s article out of hand. However, given the pernicious influence creationism has in our community, it is imperative that pseudoscientific claims made articles such as this are thoroughly refuted to as to destroy their credibility and minimise their chances of further adversely influencing the community.
CVA continues to trade on the YEC insistence that historical science is inferior to experimental science, and makes the claim that only eyewitness accounts, in particular divine eyewitness accounts can be trusted to give a reliable account of origins
Historic science is akin to forensic science, where, as per the case of a crime scene investigation, an eyewitness account or a video recording of what actually happened will always trump the way the limited evidence of a dead body, a knife and a few fingerprints by themselves can be interpreted and extrapolated. God has given us his eyewitness account in the Bible. He was there when creation happened. It makes most sense to accept his version of history as recorded in the Bible.
What CVA neglects to mention is that while forensic science – or any other branch of science for that matter – does not prove things true, it can demonstrate things true beyond reasonable doubt[17], and to reject a point demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt indicates that the doubter is not acting in good faith or is seeking to protect a cherished view from refutation. Furthermore, eyewitness testimony is nowhere near as authoritative[18] as many laypeople believe, so CVA’s dogmatic privileging of ‘eyewitness’ testimony is little more than a clumsy segue into their main point, that a literal reading of the creation narratives trumps observed reality.
More disturbingly, it is similar to the mindset of the extremist YEC organisations Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International who enshrine reality denialism in their statements of faith:
No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation.[19]
By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.[20]
Needless to say, a worldview which rejects reality in favour of a subjective human reading of the two creation narratives is a disturbingly closed-minded one.
Creationists Fail to Understand the Meaning of the Creation Narratives
The fundamental problem though lies in CVA’s belief that what we have in the creation narrative is a historically and scientifically accurate account of when the universe was created, how long it took, and how it happened and as has already been demonstrated, the creation narratives do not provide that information. The two creation narratives when read literally contradict each other on the length and order of creation events, and describe our world in terms of a three-tiered cosmos with a solid firmament, a cosmology that even YECs reject. As more than one biblical scholar has pointed out, Genesis 1 is ancient cosmology not modern science
Our first proposition is that Genesis 1 is ancient cosmology. That is, it does not attempt to describe cosmology in modern terms or address modern questions. The Israelites received no revelation to update or modify their “scientific” understanding of the cosmos. They did not know that stars were suns; they did not know that the earth was spherical and moving through space; they did not know that the sun was much further away than the moon, or even further than the birds flying in the air. They believed that the sky was material (not vaporous), solid enough to support the residence of deity as well as to hold back waters. In these ways, and many others, they thought about the cosmos in much the same way that anyone in the ancient world thought, and not at all like anyone thinks today. And God did not think it important to revise their thinking.[21]
In short, the Bible not only does not give a clear, unambiguous account of when and how creation occurred, when it does touch on the nature of the universe, it does so by referencing the ancient Near Eastern cosmogeography. Given this, it is entirely reasonable to seek scientific answers to what are ultimately scientific questions.
CVA’s profound lack of understanding of even the basics of the epistemology of science is painfully evident in their next paragraph
Therefore, the issue is not about “facts for evolution” vs “facts for creation”, but rather how we interpret the limited set of facts that we can observe today to construct a historical narrative. The consensus microbes-to-man evolutionary view being taught in our education system today is not a “scientific fact” that is as certain as water boiling at 100 degrees Celsius or known observable laws like gravity, photosynthesis and thermodynamics. Rather, evolutionary science observes certain facts in the present, and then tentatively reconstructs a historical narrative, based on many assumptions and extrapolations, to postulate on what might have happened in the past.
This argument again betrays the strong imprint of YEC organisations such as AiG who make much of the “competing worldviews” argument in their anti-science propaganda, arguing that if people viewed the evidence through “biblical lenses” they would accept young earth creationism. As YEC apologist Jason Lisle argues
We all have access to the same physical evidence. But creationists and evolutionists interpret that evidence differently because we each have a different view of history. We have two distinctly different views of the world that constrain how we understand the evidence. So, there simply is no “magic bullet” if we are thinking in terms of specific scientific evidences. Nevertheless, there is a proof of creation.[22]
This argument however evades the fact that a young earth creationist worldview makes very specific predictions which can be readily tested. If the universe was six thousand years old and the geological formations and strata largely shaped and deposited by a recent global flood, then we would expect to see clear, unambiguous evidence for that, but we don’t. Evangelical geologist Davis Young in an exhaustive survey of the historical interaction between geologists and the biblical narrative notes how geologists recognised major problems with diluvialism, the belief that a global flood was responsible for the formation of the major geological features of the earth
Certain rock types could not be reconciled with diluvialism. Catcott’s field notebooks indicate his puzzlement over conglomerate. The rounded pebbles in conglomerates came from previously existing consolidated rocks such as limestone or sandstone that were supposedly deposited as soft sediments by the flood. But how could the flood deposit soft sands and lime muds which would be solidified, then torn off and reincorporated as worn pebbles into a newer soft deposit of gravel while the entire globe was under water?
By the early nineteenth century diluvialism was even less credible. Detailed stratigraphic studies in the 1790s through 1810s disclosed systematic relationships between strata and their contained fossils. William Smith in Great Britain and Cuvier and Brongniart in France independently discovered that successive superposed strata were characterized by distinctive organic remains. Moreover, successively higher strata contained increasingly complex fossils. Layers containing marine fossils were commonly found interstratified with layers containing continental remains. Why would a turbulent flood produce such striking regularities of fossil distribution as well as alternations of thinly layered marine and continental sediments?[23]
Davis drives home the point by carefully examining literalist readings of Genesis 1 and Genesis 7, noting that we do not see uniformity in their interpretations of these passages
This lack of agreement between these literalists is damning for those who argue the creation narratives are historically accurate eyewitness accounts of creation as we would expect independent observers to converge on the same interpretation. As Davis notes
How then can we say that the Bible gives us high quality scientific data? Moreover, literalist proposals seem increasingly bizarre, speculative, and divorced from the reality of the earth as known through scientific study. Almost all modern literalist speculations fail when viewed in the light of available data, and literalism continued will undermine any effort to do serious Christian science.[24]
In a follow-up paper, Davis continues his examination of the engagement between geologists and the relevant biblical passages. It is worth noting that by the early 19th century, geologists recognised that not only could the Genesis flood not be the cause of the geological formations we see, but that the Earth was much older than six thousand years
The recognition of the earth’s vast antiquity caused little alarm among leading British and American Christian geologists of the early nineteenth century. Many of the great geologists of that era were devout and enthusiastic Christian believers who were fully committed to the infallibility of Scripture. Thus, even though Scripture played a diminishing role in professional technical geology, many geologists developed popular treatments of ways in which the results of geology could be related to biblical teaching. Many of these geologists sought to demonstrate how Scripture was fully compatible with the latest discoveries of geology. The golden age of concordism had arrived.[25]
It hardly needs stressing that this was recognised by the first half of the 19th century, before Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Far from being a clash between competing worldviews, the rejection of what we would call young earth creationism and flood geology prior to Darwin had everything to do with the fact that what believing geologists saw could not be reconciled with a literal reading of the creation and flood narratives.
Evolution is Not a Theory in Crisis
Moving to the biological and palaeontological data, the ‘competing worldview’ argument completely fails to explain what we actually see, again because special creationism and evolution make specific predictions. Specifically, the mainstream scientific view of descent with modification predicts that when classifying life using objective features such as morphology and genetic data, we will see nested hierarchies.[26] Conversely, there is no reason for specially created organisms to naturally fall into nested hierarchies; a creator could easily create mammals with feathers and birds with mammary glands and in so doing create life that could not be classified using nested hierarchies. Even more damning for the creationist argument is the fact that we have a consilience of nested hierarchies when creating evolutionary family trees using molecular and morphological data, something that as molecular biologist Emil Zuckerkandl and biochemist Linus Pauling noted provided arguably the best evidence for common descent
It will be determined to what extent the phylogenetic tree, as derived from molecular data in complete independence from the results of organismal biology, coincides with the phylogenetic tree constructed on the basis of organismal biology. If the two phylogenetic trees are mostly in agreement with respect to the topology of branching, the best available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution would be furnished. Indeed, only the theory of evolution, combined with the realization that events at any supramolecular level are consistent with molecular events, could reasonably account for such a congruence between lines of evidence obtained independently, namely amino acid sequences of homologous polypeptide chains on the one hand, and the finds of organismal taxonomy and paleontology on the other hand.[27]
A desperate creationist attempt to rebut the evidence for common descent is to appeal to common design, but ignoring the fact that we have ample evidence for shared design flaws in groups that have common ancestors such as the inverted retina in vertebrates[28], the recurrent laryngeal nerve in tetrapods[29], and the shared identical mutation in the terminal enzyme in the vitamin C biosynthetic pathway[30], facts that make common design problematic at best, White, Zhong, and Penny tested evolutionary and non-evolutionary explanations for convergence in DNA sequences and found overwhelming support for common descent
We demonstrate quantitatively that, as predicted by evolutionary theory, sequences of homologous proteins from different species converge as we go further and further back in time. The converse, a non-evolutionary model can be expressed as probabilities, and the test works for chloroplast, nuclear and mitochondrial sequences, as well as for sequences that diverged at different time depths. Even on our conservative test, the probability that chance could produce the observed levels of ancestral convergence for just one of the eight datasets of 51 proteins is ≈1×10−19 and combined over 8 datasets is ≈1×10−132. By comparison, there are about 1080 protons in the universe, hence the probability that the sequences could have been produced by a process involving unrelated ancestral sequences is about 1050 lower than picking, among all protons, the same proton at random twice in a row. A non-evolutionary control model shows no convergence, and only a small number of parameters are required to account for the observations. It is time that that researchers insisted that doubters put up testable alternatives to evolution.[31]
Far from being a case of two groups arguing over the same data, what we have is one group demonstrating that the data objectively point towards evolution as an explanation for what we see, with the other group desperately trying to cast doubt on the data with an amateurish attempt to rule out the data with risible claims that “historical science” was epistemically inferior. At least one young earth creationist has conceded that the evidence for evolution is considerable. Biochemist Todd Wood has reminded his fellow young earth creationists that
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've “converted’ to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. (Emphasis in the original) [32]
Finally, the assertion that young earth creationists are looking at the same data as evolutionary biologists, geologists, palaeontologists, and astronomers is false. Biologist Jackson Wheat and historian James Downard neatly dismiss this creationist assertion
Right from the start we must take issue with the idea that creationists are dealing with “the same evidence.” No, they are not. At best they are bumping into a tiny sliver of the data set, examples carefully selected to serve their presuppositional purposes, but not addressed squarely and fairly. We’ll be examining just how much evidence they’re leaving out in these two volumes, but as coauthor JD literally measures anti-evolutionist source usage, citation by citation, it’s fair to say as a ballpark average that creationists are ignoring 90% of the relevant information.[33]
CVA is simply wrong to argue that the question is about “how we interpret the limited set of facts” if only because the facts are anything but limited, and creationists ignore the overwhelming majority of them. The creationist interpretation was rejected a long time ago, by scientists who were believers and unbelievers because that framework simply did not make good sense of the data.
Evolution as Fact and Theory – More Creationist Failures to Understand Evolution
CVA betrays not just a profound ignorance of the epistemic basis of science in their confused understanding of historical and experimental science, but in the basic understanding of fact and theory in science when they allege
The consensus microbes-to-man evolutionary view being taught in our education system today is not a “scientific fact”
Again, the use of the creationist cliché “microbes to man” betrays the strong likelihood that CVA has uncritically lifted this argument from the YEC community and arguably not bothered researching the subject in detail. Had they done so, they would have recognised that evolution is both fact and theory. Common descent and large-scale evolutionary change are overwhelmingly attested by multiple independent converging lines of evidence.[34] Respected evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma puts it simply
Darwin provided abundant evidence for descent with modification; since then, hundreds of thousands of observations from paleontology, geographic distributions of species, comparative anatomy, embryology, genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology have confirmed that all known species are related to one another through a history of common ancestry. Thus the hypothesis of descent with modification from common ancestors has long had the status of a scientific fact.[35]
Evolution as mentioned earlier is both fact and theory. It is a fact that all life shares a common ancestor and has evolved via a process of descent with modification. The theoretical mechanism by which evolution has occurred is what we refer to as the theory of evolution. This point was made by Darwin himself who stated that he had two aims, demonstrating the fact of evolution, and proposing a theoretical mechanism to explain it
Some of those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when criticising my book, that I had the above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.[36]
There is certainly active scientific debate today both about the theoretical mechanism of evolutionary change and the exact timing and nature of evolutionary transitions in history. Debate about those facts however do not mean that evolution never occurred, just as debate about how to reconcile general relativity, the modern theory of gravitation with quantum physics do not mean that planetary motion and gravitational attraction suddenly cease to exist. Evolutionary biologist Ryan Gregory notes that
Is evolution always gradual, or can it follow a more punctuated pattern? Are chance mechanisms such as genetic drift ever as important as the nonrandom process of natural selection? Does natural selection operate only among organisms (or genes) within populations, or can it occur at other levels such as among groups or species? Did mammals diversify as a consequence of the extinction of dinosaurs? Is the primary divide among groups of organisms between those with and those without nuclei, or are there deeper splits? Are wholescale genome duplications common in evolution, and if so, are they associated with major evolutionary changes? Can complex features ever be regained once they have been lost from a lineage? Is a substantial fraction of noncoding DNA functional, or is most of it simply “junk” or “parasitic”? Was Australopithecus afarensis (“Lucy”) a direct ancestor of Homo sapiens or a member of a different hominid lineage? Debate over these questions of theory and path can become quite acrimonious within evolutionary biology, but in no case do they raise doubt about the fact of evolution. As Gould… noted, “facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them.”[37]
In short, CVA is simply wrong to allege that evolution is not a fact. It is one of the best attested facts in science.
CVA’s assertion that “[a]ccordingly objections like “the Bible is not a scientific text book” miss the point.” itself misses the point evolutionary creationists such as myself are making. We are pointing out that both internal and external evidence show that it is impossible to read the creation accounts as literal accounts of what actually happened both because the creation narratives contradict each other when read literally and presuppose a flat earth cosmogeography, and because the scientific data cannot be harmonised in either a concordist or literal manner. While not all special creationists approach Genesis as a scientific text book, they do approach it as if it was literally true. Therefore, when CVA asserts
The bible is an accurate version of what happened historically, recorded by the Eternal Father himself. Genesis presents a majestic, straightforward and compact eyewitness account of one-off, unobservable and unrepeatable events – the history of all life upon this earth, as we know it.
they are making a bald assertion that cannot be sustained both by the Biblical and scientific data given that as I have previously shown the former contradict each other when consistently read in the way special creationists assert they should be read, and the latter falsify that literal reading.
The mistaken obsession with eyewitness accounts as the gold standard for verifying what has happened in the past, one uncritically borrowed as previously shown from extremist YEC organisations like AiG permeates CVA’s argument. They continue by asserting
Evolution is an alternative suggestion about history. It proposes a different set of one-off, unobserved and unrepeatable events to explain how all life upon this earth as we know it came to be.
and declare that evolutionary biologists “cannot refer to any eyewitness accounts to confirm their version of history”. There is much that is wrong with this starting with the assumption implicit in the claim that evolution is an alternative natural history, one that presupposes the creation narratives are meant to be read as a literal scientific account.[38] As we have previously seen that the creation narratives cannot be a literal account of origins based just on internal evidence and comparison with the only external data that young earth creationists will accept, the grounds for this attempt to portray evolution as an “alternative account” collapses. Therefore, the question of when and how the earth and life on it formed is a scientific question which must be answered by scientific means.
The other problem comes from CVA’s complete failure to properly understand that when scientists refer to evolution, they are not only referring to evolution as natural history[39], but the fact of common descent, and the theoretical mechanisms proposed to explain it. Common descent is readily demonstrated via comparative anatomy, developmental biology, genomics, and biogeography, so it is simply false to assert that the fact of evolution is unobservable. Furthermore, speciation has been repeatedly observed[40],[41] while the fossil record itself is an example of large-scale evolutionary change[42] so the special creationist assertion that microevolution has been observed while macroevolution has not is false.
To be continued
[1] To this one can add their use of the term “operational science” which is a young earth creationist invention. CVA also makes the mistake of appealing to an on-line dictionary definition of science as authoritative instead of recognising that the definition of science is far more nuanced than a one-line statement in a general dictionary.
[2] Steven Novella “The Judgement of Tiktaalik Neurologica Blog Nov 14th 2007” https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-judgement-of-tiktaalik/ Accessed 20th November 2023
[3] Neil Shubin Your Inner Fish (2008: Pantheon Books) p 24
[4] Fan et al Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13–2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes Genome Res. 2002. 12: 1651-1662 doi: 10.1101/gr.337602
[5] Harris, M.P.; Hasso, S.M.; Ferguson, M.W.; Fallon, J.F. The development of archosaurian first-generation
teeth in a chicken mutant. Curr. Biol. 2006, 16, 371–377
[6] , , , and . 2008. Morphological and molecular evidence for a stepwise evolutionary transition from teeth to baleen in mysticete whales. Syst. Biol. 57: 15–37.
[7] Brawand, D., Wali, W., and Kaessmann, H. 2008. Loss of Egg Yolk Genes in Mammals and the Origin of Lactation and Placentation. PLoS Biology (6) 507–517.
[8] Pallen, M., Matzke, N. From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella. Nat Rev Microbiol 4, 784–790 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1493
[9] Allin, E. F. (1975). Evolution of the mammalian middle ear. J. Morphol. 147, 403–437. doi:10.1002/jmor.1051470404
[10] , , . Evolution of the mammalian middle ear and jaw: adaptations and novel structures. J Anat. 2013; 222(1): 147-160.
[11] Romer, A. S. (1969). Cynodont reptile with incipient mammalian jaw articulation. Science 166, 881 – 882
[12] Luo Z-X. Developmental patterns in Mesozoic evolution of mammal ears. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2011;42:355–380.
[13] Kermack KA, Mussett AF, Rigney HW. The skull of Morganucodon. Zool J Linn Soc. 1981;71:1–158.
[14] Wang Y, Hu Y, Meng J, et al. An ossified Meckel’s cartilage in two Cretaceous mammals and origin of the mammalian middle ear. Science. 2001;294:357–361.
[15] Ji Q, Luo ZX, Zhang X, et al. Evolutionary development of the middle ear in Mesozoic therian mammals. Science. 2009;326:278–281.
[16] Ernst Mayr “Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought” Scientific American Nov 24th 2009. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/darwins-influence-on-modern-thought1/ Accessed 20th November 2023
[17] “We conclude that, when several loci are used, the probability of a coincidental match is very small and that properly calculated match probabilities are correct within a factor of about 10 either way. If the calculated probability of a random-match between the suspect and evidence DNA is 1/(100 million), we can say with confidence that the correct value is very likely between l/(10 million) and 1/(l billion).” National Research Council (US) Committee on DNA Forensic Science: An Update. The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1996. Overview. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK232606/
[18] “Because the contents of our memories for experiences involve the active manipulation (during encoding), integration with pre-existing information (during consolidation), and reconstruction (during retrieval) of that information, memory is, by definition, fallible at best and unreliable at worst.” Howe ML, Knott LM. The fallibility of memory in judicial processes: lessons from the past and their modern consequences. Memory. 2015;23(5):633-56. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2015.1010709. Epub 2015 Feb 23. PMID: 25706242; PMCID: PMC4409058.
[19] https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/ Accessed 21st November 2023
[20] https://creation.com/what-we-believe Accessed 21st November 2023
[21] John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 14.
[22] Jason Lisle “Is There an “Ultimate Proof of Creation?” https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/is-there-an-ultimate-proof-of-creation/ Accessed 21st November 2023
[23] Davis A. Young, “Scripture in the Hands of Geologists (Part One)” Westminster Theological Journal 49.1 (1987): 24.
[24] Ibid, p 33.
[25] Davis A. Young, “Scripture in the Hands of Geologists (Part Two),” Westminster Theological Journal 49.2 (1987): 262.
[26] Futuyma, D. J., Kirkpatrick, M. Evolution. (2017: Sinauer), 427
[27] Zuckerkandl, E. and Pauling, L. (1965) “Evolutionary Divergence and Convergence in Proteins.” in Evolving Genes and Proteins: a symposium held at the Institute of Microbiology of Rutgers, with support from the National Science Foundation. Eds Vernon Bryson and Henry J. Vogel. New York: Academic Press.
[28] Novella, S. Suboptimal Optics: Vision Problems as Scars of Evolutionary History. Evo Edu Outreach 1, 493–497 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-008-0092-1
[29] Ridley, Mark. Evolution. (2004: Wiley), 281-2
[30] Y. Inai and M. Nishikimi, “Random Nucleotide Substitutions in Primate Nonfunctional Gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone Oxidase, the Missing Enzyme in L-ascorbic Acid Biosynthesis,” Biochimica et Biophyisica Acta 1472 (1999): 408-11.[30]
[31] White WTJ, Zhong B, Penny D (2013) Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Evolution from DNA Sequences. PLoS ONE 8(8): e69924. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069924
[32] Todd Wood, “The Truth about Evolution,” Todd’s Blog, September 30, 2009, http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html. Accessed 21st November 2023
[33] Wheat, J., Downard, J. The Rocks Were There: Straight Science Answers to Bent Creationist Questions, Volume 1. (2020): Independently Published, 15-16
[34] Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.89. 2012. Web. 21 Nov 2023 <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>
[35] Futuyma, op cit. p 8
[36] Darwin C. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray; 1871.
[37] Gregory, T.R. Evolution as Fact, Theory, and Path. Evo Edu Outreach 1, 46–52 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-007-0001-z
[38] The question of what the creation accounts are trying to teach is one that lies outside the scope of a short paper such as this, but in short it is best to see the creation narratives as teaching a theology of creation rather than a science of creation, and in the process acting as a polemic against alternative creation myths.
[39] “Evolution as path deals with the factual details of life’s history, such as the degree of relatedness of modern species to one another, the timing of splits among lineages, the characteristics of extinct ancestors, and the major events that have occurred over the nearly 4 billion years of life’s saga.” Gregory, T.R. Evolution as Fact, Theory, and Path., 50
[40] Joseph Boxhorn “Observed instances of speciation: TalkOrigins Archive http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html Accessed 14th December 2023
[41] Chris Stassen, James Meritt, Anneliese Lilje, L. Drew Davis “Some More Observed Speciation Events” TalkOrigins Archive http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html Accessed 14th December 2023
[42] While as Steven Gould pointed out in Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History that species-level transitions tend not to be seen at the species level while being more abundant between higher taxonomic levels, sometimes we do see such fine-grained transitions as palaeontologist Donald Prothero notes “Let us look at just one more classic example, probably the most extreme change in morphology ever documented in the fossil record. If you look at samples of microfossils from the middle Eocene (50 million years ago), you will find distinctive spongy ball-shaped radiolarians known as Lithocyclia ocellus. As you trace the spongy balls up through the sediments spanning millions of years, you see them gradually lose their spongy outer layers and develop into a small nucleus with four spongy arms (Lithocyclia aristotelis), then three arms (Lithocyclia angusta), and finally two arms forming a spindle-like shape (Cannartus tubarius). The Cannartus lineage then gradually develops a “waist” on the central sphere, then the arms get shorter and thicker, and finally, they split into two lineages: Cannartus peterssoni-Ommatartus hughesi, which evolves into a form with two arms with multiple spongy layers, and Ommatartus, which develops shorter arms and a fatter central sphere. If you look at the two extremes (a spongy sphere turning into a spindle-shaped shell with multiple caps), you could never imagine that they are closely related—yet I have looked at the slides from those cores and seen the gradual transition from one extreme to the other with my own eyes.” Donald Prothero Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters (2017: Columbia University Press) 192-193
