This may be a little different, today. That’s okay, a little something different now and again makes for a nice change; a breath of fresh air, you might say.
The subject of evolution (as opposed to creationism) has come up. If you’ve been reading my blog for very long, you probably know (or at least could make a reasonable assumption, based on other things that I have written) that I am a creationist. I don’t really have anything against evolution, I think that it’s probably the best guess that the scientific community could come up with, given the available evidence. I do get a little annoyed when people try to pass evolution off as fact. It’s called the theory of evolution for a reason. Scientifically, it is not considered proven fact. Now, some would have us believe that it’s so close to being a proven fact that we shouldn’t worry about that, but, really it’s still just a theory.
Now, the book of Genesis tells us that God formed man from the dust of the earth, and breathed the breath of life into him, and Adam became a living soul. I will admit, that sounds a little on the superstitious side, even to me, and I believe it happened just like that. Now you might be able to convince me that the account in Genesis is largely metaphorical, that really God placed microbes in the mud, and guided those microbes to combine in wondrous ways, and over the course of several millennia, eventually human form took shape. I will admit, that if God had tried to explain that to Moses, Moses’ head probably would have exploded, because he just didn’t have the background to understand it; so okay, maybe God simplified the explanation for Moses’ benefit. As I said, I don’t really believe that, but I will concede the possibility.
Now, as far as evolution by the process of natural selection, let’s consider for a moment. To be honest, I have read a number of explanations of how evolution is supposed to happen, but they almost always seem to be explaining intelligent design rather than natural selection. Almost without exception, they will say something along the lines of, something happened to the environment of some poor creature, forcing a mutation, which led to an evolutionary change. That’s fine, if we have some intellect in charge of making sure that poor creatures don’t go extinct just because of changes in the environment (other than man, of course). But how does a change in the environment force an evolutionary change? The simple answer is that it doesn’t. What the evolutionists are really trying to say at this point is that mutations happen every so often, but usually, those changes do not result in a net benefit for the species undergoing mutation. When an environmental change coincides with a mutation, then that mutation may (or may not) benefit the mutated being. Of course, theoretically, the mutation doesn’t have to coincide with an environmental change in order to be effective. For example, theoretically, giraffes developed long necks because that mutation made it possible for giraffes to eat leaves from higher up in trees, where there was less competition for food.
One thing that biologists seem to over look (or perhaps there is a mechanism at work that I am not aware of) is the fact that mutations are almost always represent recessive traits. In other words, in order for an evolutionary change to happen, each of the new species has to inherit the mutant trait from both parents. For example, suppose that a man is born with six fingers on each hand. That may or may not be an evolutionary advantage, but, in order for him to pass on that trait to his children, he would almost certainly have to find a woman that also had six fingers on each hand to be the mother of his children. Or failing that, perhaps one of his offspring has children by another individual with six fingers; some of those children may inherit the six-finger trait from both parents, even though one parent only has five fingers on each hand and is only carrying the trait. This makes it fairly obvious that true evolutionary changes are extremely rare. Many biologists figure that there is about one evolutionary change per species per 10,000 years (of course, a lot depends on how complex an organism one is referring to. Single-celled creatures are considered to be considerably more prone to mutation simply because their DNA is so much simpler). Now, maybe I’m overestimating the biologically complexity of the human body, but it seems to me that it would have taken a whole lot longer for us to have evolved through natural selection that scientists generally figure the world has been around. It’s generally believed that the earth is about 4 .6 billion years old. At 10,000 years per change, that puts us at a result of less than half a million changes. When you stop to consider that they don’t believe life formed on earth for the first 1.5 billion years, our evolutionary timeline gets even shorter.
As I said before, the theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation that exists currently. Some people have a bad tendency to refer to natural selection as Darwinism, on the grounds that it was first proposed by Charles Darwin. The theory has been modified several times in the years since Darwin, though. Keep in mind that when Darwin first proposed natural selection, it was considered to be scientific fact that heavier-than-air craft could never fly, and that the atom would never be split. We have learned a lot since Darwin, and sometimes it seems that we still know so little.
The subject of evolution (as opposed to creationism) has come up. If you’ve been reading my blog for very long, you probably know (or at least could make a reasonable assumption, based on other things that I have written) that I am a creationist. I don’t really have anything against evolution, I think that it’s probably the best guess that the scientific community could come up with, given the available evidence. I do get a little annoyed when people try to pass evolution off as fact. It’s called the theory of evolution for a reason. Scientifically, it is not considered proven fact. Now, some would have us believe that it’s so close to being a proven fact that we shouldn’t worry about that, but, really it’s still just a theory.
Now, the book of Genesis tells us that God formed man from the dust of the earth, and breathed the breath of life into him, and Adam became a living soul. I will admit, that sounds a little on the superstitious side, even to me, and I believe it happened just like that. Now you might be able to convince me that the account in Genesis is largely metaphorical, that really God placed microbes in the mud, and guided those microbes to combine in wondrous ways, and over the course of several millennia, eventually human form took shape. I will admit, that if God had tried to explain that to Moses, Moses’ head probably would have exploded, because he just didn’t have the background to understand it; so okay, maybe God simplified the explanation for Moses’ benefit. As I said, I don’t really believe that, but I will concede the possibility.
Now, as far as evolution by the process of natural selection, let’s consider for a moment. To be honest, I have read a number of explanations of how evolution is supposed to happen, but they almost always seem to be explaining intelligent design rather than natural selection. Almost without exception, they will say something along the lines of, something happened to the environment of some poor creature, forcing a mutation, which led to an evolutionary change. That’s fine, if we have some intellect in charge of making sure that poor creatures don’t go extinct just because of changes in the environment (other than man, of course). But how does a change in the environment force an evolutionary change? The simple answer is that it doesn’t. What the evolutionists are really trying to say at this point is that mutations happen every so often, but usually, those changes do not result in a net benefit for the species undergoing mutation. When an environmental change coincides with a mutation, then that mutation may (or may not) benefit the mutated being. Of course, theoretically, the mutation doesn’t have to coincide with an environmental change in order to be effective. For example, theoretically, giraffes developed long necks because that mutation made it possible for giraffes to eat leaves from higher up in trees, where there was less competition for food.
One thing that biologists seem to over look (or perhaps there is a mechanism at work that I am not aware of) is the fact that mutations are almost always represent recessive traits. In other words, in order for an evolutionary change to happen, each of the new species has to inherit the mutant trait from both parents. For example, suppose that a man is born with six fingers on each hand. That may or may not be an evolutionary advantage, but, in order for him to pass on that trait to his children, he would almost certainly have to find a woman that also had six fingers on each hand to be the mother of his children. Or failing that, perhaps one of his offspring has children by another individual with six fingers; some of those children may inherit the six-finger trait from both parents, even though one parent only has five fingers on each hand and is only carrying the trait. This makes it fairly obvious that true evolutionary changes are extremely rare. Many biologists figure that there is about one evolutionary change per species per 10,000 years (of course, a lot depends on how complex an organism one is referring to. Single-celled creatures are considered to be considerably more prone to mutation simply because their DNA is so much simpler). Now, maybe I’m overestimating the biologically complexity of the human body, but it seems to me that it would have taken a whole lot longer for us to have evolved through natural selection that scientists generally figure the world has been around. It’s generally believed that the earth is about 4 .6 billion years old. At 10,000 years per change, that puts us at a result of less than half a million changes. When you stop to consider that they don’t believe life formed on earth for the first 1.5 billion years, our evolutionary timeline gets even shorter.
As I said before, the theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation that exists currently. Some people have a bad tendency to refer to natural selection as Darwinism, on the grounds that it was first proposed by Charles Darwin. The theory has been modified several times in the years since Darwin, though. Keep in mind that when Darwin first proposed natural selection, it was considered to be scientific fact that heavier-than-air craft could never fly, and that the atom would never be split. We have learned a lot since Darwin, and sometimes it seems that we still know so little.
UPDATE: It occured to me, belatedly, that I should have included a plug for Ben Stein's new movie, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," that opens Friday, April 18th. Let me also point out that, although Ben Stein is noted for having been a game show host, he is a Harvard graduate, and a very intelligent man (perhaps in spite of his education). I am sure that he and I would disagree on many things, but I have a lot of respect for him, and I think that this is a movie that everyone should see (although I reserve the right to change my mind after I see it).
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment