| Home Page | Evolution | |
|
Christian Apologetic
|
Christians have been taught for perhaps two-hundred years, that to believe in a long creation time scale is tantamount to accepting the self-assembly of molecules into humans - via the monkeys. Heightening this issue are the Genesis flood doctrines of many modern young-earth creationists. Since they believe that all of today's land animals are descended from the creatures on Noah's ark, and since they recognize the ark as being too small and the caretakers on board too few to preserve all land animals on the earth today, they conclude Noah took two of every order, genus, or subgenus rather than two of every species. The many species present on the earth today are therefore presumed to arise through biological evolution from the orders and genera present on Noah's ark! Extrapolating such rapid biological evolution over a few billion years seems to imply little need for God beyond the first life-forms or the first members of a biological phylum. Definitions Evolution means simply "change with respect to time." The time scale can be short or very prolonged, and the change can be great or minute, while the cause can be intelligent or random non-intelligence. By this definition, we could say that Genesis 1 describes evolution, for it describes change in the realm of nature with respect to time, however long or short that time might be. Most Christians, however, are responding to a different understanding of the term, "evolution." To most Christians, the definition is usually the narrow biological one: the theory that all species developed from earlier forms. The dictionary does not add the phrase, "without divine miraculous intervention," but people, Christians and others, assume that it is there nonetheless. Nor does the definition of evolution include any comment about the origin of life, but for many people, the word "evolution" implies that natural processes along produced the gigantic leap from inorganic to organic. Origin of Life Possibilities The naturalist's problem is bridging the gap between simple inorganic systems and self-replicating organic life forms. The difference between an aqueous solution containing a few amino acids and other prebiotic molecules and the simplest living cells is enormous. The first organic entity appearing in the fossil record is a fully formed cell - biologists do not suggest that an organic entity any simpler than a cell (i.e., a virus or prion) could survive independently. Harold Morowitz, a molecular biologist, calculated the distance between the inorganic and organic worlds. If one were to take the simplest living cell and break down every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal conditions (the best possible chemical conditions where no foreign substances would be permitted to intrude nor any of the needed substances permitted to leave), would be one chance in 10 raised to the 100 billion power! With odds such as this, the creation time-scale issue becomes irrelevant. Whether the earth has been present for ten seconds, or for ten billion years makes no difference. Neither does the size of hte universe make any difference. If all the material in the visible universe were converted into the building blocks of life (amino acids and nucleotides), and if assembly of these blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe (about 17 billion years), the number of opportunities to form a living entity, 10 raised to the 84th power, is so enormously smaller than the number required to give a reasonable probability of success, 10 raised to the 100 billion power, as to make no difference at all in the likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life. Given these numbers, how absurd for Christians to argue about a mere factor of a few billion years of creation! Actually, the odds are even worse! Morowitz assumed the presence of only bioactive building blocks. In the real world, non-bioactive building blocks are mixed in with the bioactive ones. Only twenty of the more than eighty naturally occurring amino acids are bioactive and only those with the hydrogen atom on the left side (about half the amino acids) can be used in biological systems. Morowitz also assumed that only constructive chemical processes would operate whereas, under natural conditions, destructive chemical processes operate at least as frequently as the constructive ones. Further Complications There are further complications regarding naturalistic evolution. Recent research shows that at least twenty-five different characteristics of the Universe must be exquisitely fine-tuned for life's essential building blocks to exist - in several instances, this find-tuning exceeds one part on 10^37! This find-tuning far exceeds anything humans have been able to achieve - even with the advanced technology in our most magnificent projects. We can only conclude that the Cause of the building blocks of life is unimaginable intelligent, creative, capable, and caring. If the involvement of a Creator is necessary to explain the crafting of the simplest building blocks of life, how much more is he needed to explain the design and assembly of living organisms?The second problem lies in a false assumption concerning the benefit of time and the durability of these building blocks. To illustrate, compare the essential molecules with the elements of a watch. In the absence of friction or erosion, it would be very difficult to imagine the parts of a watch spontaneously assembling bit by bit into a finished watch under careful, gentle shaking of its environment. Careful, because tool much shaking would destroy any partial assembly which might have by chance already occurred. Additionally, the shaking must be carefully performed as well as because at each point in the assembly sequence, under random shaking of the box, the probability would be greater for disassembly of the watch parts than for assembly. Any watchmaker will readily testify that piecing together the parts of an intricate watch takes intense concentration and exquisite, purposeful manipulation. Given the far higher probability of disassembly than of assembly, itis arguable at what point time because a hindrance rather than a help in the assembly of our watch. Similarly, it is arguable at what point time turns against the chances for strictly natural assembly of building blocks into living organisms. Friction and erosion, however, cannot be ignored. In the real world - organic and inorganic, - they continually occur. In the watch analogy, continuous shaking of the box will turn the gears and sprockets into dust long before they spontaneously assemble themselves into a finished watch. The durability of the watch parts falls far short of the random assembly time. In the case of proteins, DNA and RNA molecules, their breakdown into simpler molecules or into nonfunctioning molecules would occur far more quickly than would their random self-assembly from simpler molecules into living organisms, or even into the component proteins, DNA and RNA. The most recent scientific determination of the maximum time it took for the first life-form to originate on the earth is 10 million years. The 10 million years might as well be ten seconds for such a time is inadequate for self-assembly of atoms into organisms. Primordial Life to Humans Another myth has long held sway in evolutionary biology, a that says the 3.8 billion years between the first life-form on the earth and the first humans is adequate time for single-celled creatures to transform themselves into humans. The basis for this hypothesis is two-fold:
Ignoring the limitations on these two mechanisms, a person might presume that several billion years worth of extrapolation m9ight explain much, if not all, of the fossil record details. However, the limitations are much too severe to support such a hypothesis. Limitations on Natural Selection The canine species provides a good example as to how far natural selection can and cannot go. Through decades of selective breeding, wild dogs have become hundreds of distinct breeds. Today, we see teacup poodles no larger than a person's hand, and Great Dane nearly the size of a pony. Obviously, a male teacup poodle is physically unable to mate successfully with a female Great Dane. If a common definition of a species (a class of creatures that can mate and produce fertile offspring) is used, the dog species has developed into more than one species. But consider the impact of that "speciation." Both teacup poodles and Great Dane are fragile in terms of life expectancy and survivability. IF they were forced to defend for themselves in the wild, they would most certainly become rapidly extinct. The further we breed the progeny away from the norm (or mean) of the species, the less survivable the progeny become. Though to breed a dog even smaller than a teacup poodle may be possible, breeders would eventually hit the limits of natural selection. The smaller the dog, the more difficult it becomes to keep that dog alive even in the protection of our homes. Ironically, natural selection argues for stasis rather than for change. In the case of dogs, for example, if we remove all the barriers separating different breeds and allow the breeds to mingle freely with each other, within relatively few generations the progeny would revert back to the mean - the ancestral "dog." When natural selection does work to change a species, the change is minor. Humans are today about half a foot taller and see better than our ancestors of millennia ago - most of this change is attributable to better nutrition. Some of the change is, arguably, due to natural selection - people with clearer eyesight might be better able to dodge spears and other hazards increasing the chance they will reproduce compared to their more myopic contemporaries. The contribution of natural selection to the human species remains so tiny, however, as to prove inconsequential for explaining the differences between humans and any other species, including the apes. For some species, even this possibility for slight change does not exist. Natural selection is founded on the principle that a species will overpopulate to such a degree that eventually, only the most fit survive. But not all species overpopulate. Many species of birds, for example, reduce their egg production in direct proportion to the supply of food. Their populations are not limited by starvation and predation but rather by instinctively controlled breeding. Limitations on Mutational Change Time is a major requirement for evolution to occur - but how much time? In order to estimate time requirements, it is necessary to have some understanding as to the rate of mutational change. Furthermore, mutations carry the potential for producing dramatic changes in the characteristics of a species - most of these changes will be bad rather than favorable. Additionally, these changes are limited by the generational time span and the population size of the species. For example, if a favorable change occurs in an individual member of a species, that characteristic will not be passed down to progeny if that individual soon dies. Furthermore, mutations occur very rarely. Typically, only one individual in a million will experience a mutations. Most non-lethal mutations are neutral - they have no effect upon the progeny of that individual carrying the change. Of the remaining mutations, the great majority are harmful to the species. The ratio of harmful to favorable mutations measures between ten thousand to one and a million to one. With favorable mutation rates as low as one per ten billion individuals or lower, most species simply cannot mutate rapidly enough to adapt to severe environmental stresses. The likelihood for extinction far exceeds the chance for a species to mutate into a new, survivable species. The exceptions are species with huge populations and short generation time. Species with a quadrillion individuals (or more) and a life cycle of three months or less stand a reasonable chance of propagating a sufficient number of favorable mutations to adapt to minor environmental challenges. Ants, termites, bacteria, and viruses fall into this category. However, for the vast majority of all living things, mutations are destructive. Virtually all species will go extinct long before they could change successfully via mutation. For all species, nothing like development of new organs falls within the range of reasonable probability. One response of evolutionary biologists to this numerical challenge is to hypothesize periods in the Earth's history during which the mutation rate greatly exceeded one per million individuals. However, circumstances generating such a high mutation rate would also threaten the survival of all progeny - both mutated and unmutated. Therefore, the increased mutation rate would be counterbalanced - if not vastly overbalanced - by a decreased population and decreased probability that survivors will successfully reproduce and provide for the needs of their progeny. Conclusion Interpreting the Genesis creation days as tens of millions or even hundreds of millions or Earth years in no way leads support to naturalistic evolution. These time frames are far too brief by many orders of magnitude for simple life to arise and become complex by natural processes. Therefore, the fear expressed by many evangelical Christians that believe in long creation days producing a slippery slide toward naturalistic evolution (belief that life arises from natural processes only) or theistic evolution (belief that God creates only through His control of the natural processes - but not independently) is unfounded. It is a little known fact that a sizable proportion of biology research fellows, professors, and graduate students at leading universities are Bible-believing Christians who deny the neo-Darwinist hypotheses of molecules to primordial life and primordial life to humans through natural processes alone. |