Evolution: Science or Worldview

Darwinian Opposition:

     In today's culture the very mention of opposition to Darwin's Theory of Evolution is considered an oxymoron or maybe just a moron. Science books rarely list any alternative to the evolutionary view. Anyone objecting to the rule of evolution is pictured as a religious zealot who also believes in a Flat Earth. However the Theory of Evolution did not appear in a scientific vacuum. Louis Agassiz (1807-1873) a professor at Harvard actively opposed Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Professor Agassiz founded the Museum of Comparative Zoology.  In addition, he was a regent of the Smithsonian and is widely recognized as a Founding Father of the American Scientific Tradition. Agassiz published Methods of Study in Natural History in 1863, in which he summarizes the belief of the majority of  biologists of the nineteenth century.

         It is my belief that naturalists are chasing a phantom, in their search after some material                 gradation among created beings, by which the whole Animal Kingdom may have been derived               by successive development from a single germ, or from a few germs. It would seem, from the           frequency with which this notion is revived, - ever returning upon us with hydra-headed                    tenacity of life, presenting itself under a new form as soon as the preceding one had been               exploded and set aside, - that it has a certain fascination for the human mind.     Evolution: A Theory in         Crisis p.94)

Agassiz, along with most of the biologists of his era, believed in a view of nature called Typology. Typology stated that the individual members of a class were variations  on an underlying design, which was invariant and immutable. Biological classes were completely unique. They were mutually exclusive and could not be arranged in sequence. In geometry triangles are described as having three sides and quadrilaterals are figures bounded by four straight lines. Triangles can be labeled as obtuse, acute, or equilateral however they are still triangles. They were Not in the process of turning into quadrilaterals. Think of the concept of sets. In biological terms, all mammalian species were equi-representative of the mammalian archetype. All known mammals shared a number of defining or diagnostic characteristics such as hair, mammary glands, and a diaphragm. All birds are equally representative of the class of birds whether they were aquatic, waders, or flightless. The crux of typology is that absolute discontinuities exist between each class of organism. Life was therefore a fundamentally discontinuous phenomenon. While accepting that there was variation within species the concept of transmutation was denied.

         Agassiz and other biologists saw nature as an adapted functional whole. Their belief was not rooted in wishful thinking but empirical data. Typologists were convinced by the beautiful functionality of organisms that they were designed. As Rudwick put it “To believe that such intricately coordinated organic mechanism had come into being by `chance' or `accident', . . . was inconceivable.” Nineteenth century biologists were aware that domesticated animals were bred for specific characteristics. They were also aware that there were limits on how far a breed could be pushed. Paleontologists knew the fossil record not only contained gaps but it held no record of the transmutations and diversification that evolution required. Robert Owen wondered.

 In Europe, Baron George Leopold Cuvier (1769-1832) studied the fossil record in the Paris Basin in France and began sequencing the geologic record. He is considered the founder of vertebrate paleontology and comparative anatomy. He developed a theory of Earth's history based on what he observed in the fossil record. Cuvier saw long periods of stasis that were interrupted by cataclysm and extinction. The British geologist Sir Charles Lyell (1797-1875) opposed Cuvier's view of Earth's history. He viewed the same geologic record and saw a very different progression, which is illustrated in the following quote.

             We hear of sudden and violent revolutions of the globe, of the instantaneous elevation of                  mountains, of paroxysms of volcanic energy. . . . We are told of general catastrophes and a               succession of deluges, of the alternation of the periods of repose and disorder, of the                                          refrigeration of the globe, the annihilation of whole races of animals and plants, and other                                   hypotheses in which we see the ancient spirit of speculation revived, and a desire                manifested to cut, rather than patiently to untie, the Gordian knot. (The Nemesis Affair p.31)

Lyell's Principles of Geology became the foundation of a new science. Darwin was heavily influenced by Lyell's thesis of the uniformity of natural forces. “The present is the key to the past” is the motto that is drilled into every first year geology student. Lyell believed that the forces of nature worked in a constant, predictable manner, which is called uniformitarianism. Rocks erode at a specific rate; sediment drifts down to the ocean floor as a steady rain of debris; volcanic magma cools in a predictable manner. All these processes can be calculated. Geologists could monitor variables and then project them backward through time. Geology became quantifiable.        

     Humans like the idea of continuity. One thing leads to another in a flow we call progress. Electric lights are brighter and less dangerous than burning candles. The latest high tech gadget has to be better than the one that came out 15 minutes ago. The concept of scientific progress has been extended to cultural change. The passage of time is thought to lead to more advanced civilizations. The Stone Age was followed by the Bronze Age, which was overwhelmed by those who had iron swords. Lyell's theory of Uniformity defeated Cuvier's theory of Catastrophism. For over a 100 years Catastrophism and typology have been banished from the vocabulary of scientists. However in the late 1970’s paleontology became front page news. Luis Alvarez, an experimental physicist, proposed that the extinction of dinosaurs was due to an asteroid impact. According to the Evolutionary Theory dinosaurs became extinct in a slow and gradual process that was attributed to environmental change (i.e., too hot, too cold, loss of habitat).

       What is now called Neo-Catastrophism is a resurgent concept in paleontology. This re-evaluation has not meant the total collapse of those who believe in uniformitarianism. Many scientists continue to point to volcanism and other naturally occurring phenomenon to account for the other mass extinctions. They contend that the gaps in the fossil record hide a gradual decline in the populations. DID you say other mass extinctions? Yes, there are at least five recognized mass extinctions in the fossil record. 

     Mass extinction is defined as at least 50 percent of the species being permanently removed from the fossil record. The figure below clearly indicates 5 massive spikes in the extinction rate. The diagram is in marked contrast to the spiral of life which is reputed to show the slow and continuous process of evolution. Darwin believed that over an infinite period of time, evolution ( variation and random mutation) would slowly make the minute changes needed to transform simple amoebas into more complex life forms. The geologic record clearly indicates long periods of stasis that are ruptured by at least 5 massive extinctions. 

    1. Ordovician Extinction - 85% of all species 

   2.  Devonian Extinction - 80% 0f all species

    3. Permian  Extinction- 96% of all species -  called the Great Dying

     4. Triassic -Jurassic Extinction - 55% of all species

     5. Cretaceous-Tertiary - KT Extinction -75 % of  all species

Remember extinction means that these animals were completely removed from existence. The fossil record has always presented a problem for Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Darwin himself admitted that there was a dearth of transitional fossils (fossils that clearly showed a species in the process of mutating). Darwin chose to ignore that information as he pursued a single unifying concept.   

Scopes Trial re-visited:

     Dr. Hunter, the author of Civic Biology believed that evolution was true. Although evolution is only referenced twice in the index of his text it is the foundation of his thinking and his support of Social Darwinism. The following quote clearly illustrates his belief.

We have now learned that animal forms may be arranged so as to begin with very simple one-celled forms and culminate with a group which contains man himself. . . . Evolution means change, . . . The great English scientist Charles Darwin, from this and other evidence explained the theory of evolution. This is the belief that simple forms of life on the earth slowly and gradually gave rise to those more complex and that thus ultimately the most complex forms came into existence. (Civic Biology p.194).

     The reasoning used by Dr. Hunter has become a standard proof. Because there is change over time – evolution is a proven fact (Definition 1). Fossils from various ages show different species and variation within those species microevolution (Definition 2). Having seen the diversity of creatures on his voyage on the Beagle and knowing that English farmers were breeding sheep and pigeons for specific characteristics Darwin believed he had seen an underlying pattern or mechanism. He stretched variation within current species back through time. Macroevolution (Definition 3) is presented as a proven theory based on the validity of two other definitions of the word evolution. Macroevolution, is a completely different theory that must stand on the basis of proof and not presumption.

     Words have meaning and can exert a powerful influence. Words can also be used to create confusion and misdirection. Let's use an example that has nothing to do with evolution. Water is a necessity of human life. We get thirsty if we don’t drink water. The prolonged lack of water leads to dehydrated and possibly death. It is therefore a fact that water is good for humans. If you polled 100 Americans 99 would agree that water is necessary for human life. (You will never get 100 people to agree on anything. There will be at least 1 curmudgeon in any crowd). Granted that water is good and necessary for life it can then be logically assumed that the water in Bilious Bayou is good and necessary for humans. It is after all water.

     I don’t think so! The same 100 Americans you polled earlier would want to know the water quality of Bilious Bayou. Was this water upstream from the paper mill and the chemical plant? Has this water been tested for purity? While accepting as a truth that water is necessary for life we quickly question the meaning of exactly what water before ingesting this truth. The Theory of Evolution must be tested with the same stringency as our drinking water.

      The scientific community is well aware that knowledge is built slowly, one brick at a time. Constant testing and re-evaluation encourages a curious mind to inquire and on occasion to remove, rework or reshape one of those bricks.  Einstein's Theory of Relativity is well established. It has survived the test of time and repeated evaluation. Yet it is still referred to as a theory. This is not a sign of disrespect, it is a reminder that it only takes a single flaw or exception to being unraveling a theory.   Aristotle's Theory of a finite sphere with stars lining the inner portion of the heavens was accepted for nearly two thousand years.

      All scientists should seek to avoid the peril of blinders. If a concept is embraced too tightly a scientist is no longer seeking knowledge. New information will be ignored or missed because the answer is known before the data is examined. Blindly accepting a theory generates a situation in which scientists commit the error of misapplying data or forcing information into a prescribed box. Much of the information that was presented at the Scopes Trial or was accepted as data at the time has not withstood the test of time and close scrutiny. It had more to do with seeing what they wanted to believe. 

The skull was only 500 years old and the jaw was that of an orangutan. The teeth had been filed and then stained to look ancient. Although, it was discovered as a fraud it had been a part of the literature of evolutionary facts for nearly half a century. It fit the myth. Lest, Americans think that we could not be fooled paleontologists had found America’s version of the missing link. Based on a rather limited sampling Nebraska Man was heralded as the American Neanderthal. From the sample of fossilized teeth a drawing was created for the Illustrated London News. The fossilized remains of Nebraska Man were to be cited as evidence of evolution in the Scopes Trial but it was withdrawn when the fossils were discovered to be the remains of pig’s teeth. 

Not all fossil evidence revolves around mankind. Shortly after Darwin released his book The Origin of Species a fossil was discovered in Germany that was heralded as a missing link. The Archaeopteryx was considered a link between dinosaurs and birds. The extremely beautiful fossilization shows in delicate detail what appears to be feathers and claws on the ends of the wings. To many scientists this was clear evidence that animals mutated from one species into another. This was seen as a transitional creature. The claws were a reptilian feature while the feathers were those of a bird. Originally the Archaeopteryx was seen as a strong proof of Darwin’s theory of macroevolution as it presented an animal transitioning from one species to another. However in 1892, Sir Richard Owen, the eminent curator of the British Museum of Natural History, published his own description of Archaeopteryx. He stated that it was “unequivocally a bird – a peculiar and distinctive bird, but a bird nevertheless.” Current research has continued to verify this statement.   

     "Ontogeny repeats phylogeny” is a rhyming phrase that is found in many biology textbooks. It is frequently pictured with a sequence of embryos that were drawn by a man named Ernst Haeckel. Since Darwin was not an embryologist he relied heavily on the work of the German biologist Ernst Haeckel. The drawings appear to indicate that human embryos and those of other species are extremely similar early on and that mankind and all other species “evolved” from a common ancestor.

Haeckel's drawings of embryos provide a powerful visual image. The problem is that biologists have known for over a hundred years that Haeckel FAKED his drawings. Vertebrate embryos NEVER look as similar as Haeckel pictured them and in certain instances he used the same woodcut over again. According to historian Jane Oppenheimer, Haeckel's belief in the Theory of Evolution encouraged him to see what he wanted to see. “In some cases, Haeckel used the same woodcuts to print embryos that were supposedly from different classes. In others, he doctored his drawings to make the embryos appear more alike than they really were. Haeckel's contemporaries repeatedly criticized him for these misrepresentations and charges of fraud abounded in his lifetime.” (Icons of Evolution p.91).     

       Are we assessing facts or fulfilling a worldview ?  Darwin wrote The Origin of Species confident that his Theory of Evolution had an infinite span of time to randomly combine, recombine and gradually create the present diversity of species. An infinite amount of time is essential to evolutionists for the gradual change of one celled species into, into, into everything. Darwin believed that just as there were an infinite number of stars that his Theory of Evolution had an infinite amount of time and matter. The Hot Big Bang Theory of the origin of the universe put a finite time frame on the universe. In the Beginning - has a definite meaning both in the Bible and in the world of science.

     Darwin and his materialistic philosophy offered a very different approach to science. Darwinism denies the need for a Creator. Science under the Darwinian paradigm is to seek Truth only from the world of matter. Mankind is to be treated as an animal that was arrived at by a randomized chemistry experiment. A man who has no soul is more easily led to accept the philosophical cover of eugenics as the final solution.

           The science of Anthropometrics was one of the new fields of “science” that sprang from the belief in eugenics. Anthropometrics proposed that by measuring the legs, arms and fingers of repeat offenders scientists could develop measurements to identify potential criminals. In time these measurements could be compiled to determine who had criminal tendencies based on their physical characteristics. The picture above depicts a scientist taking physical measurements that would determine the subject's status as a member of the Aryan race. 

Thomas Hunt Morgan, at Columbia University criticized the failure of eugenicists to define traits such as feeble-mindedness and criminality. He also pointed to the problem generated as certain traits were clearly influenced by social conditions, making it impossible to clearly delimit them as a genetic trait. The anthropologist Franz Boas called eugenics, racism disguised as science.   None of these criticisms appeared to deter the eugenicists, who continued to flourish through the mid-1930's in the United States. However when funding moved elsewhere the Carnegie Institute closed the Eugenics Record Office in 1939. The Eugenics movement however had taken root in Germany under the regime of the Nazis. Using the work from America as a template and a scientific basis Germany moved forward to fulfill the eugenic ideal of controlling their own evolution. When scientific theories are used to reinforce philosophical or social programs humanity is often the loser.  In this horrific instance millions of people were purged in the pursuit of Aryan purity.

      Having won WWII we breathe a deep sigh and pray that humanity will never be faced with such arrogant evil. Bad ideas however are often repackaged and presented under a new banner. The April 1998 issue of Life magazine ran a cover story, complete with a double-helix spanning the length of the page. The title boldly read “Were You Born That Way?” The subtitle left little doubt as to the answer: “Personality, temperament even life choices. New studies show it’s mostly in your genes.” Life was not alone in promoting such claims. Print media, television, websites, and chat rooms all applaud major advances in genetic biotechnology and portray genetics as the “magic bullet” that will cure social and behavioral problems. The implication is that humanities problems are largely the result of a defective biology. The solution offered for aggressive or even violent behavior is biomedical intervention. The future promises permanent gene intervention with pharmacotherapy (drug substitutes for the defective gene) available now.

       By promoting such claims we appear to be reviving a new version of eugenics. Companies and hospitals now offer testing for genetic flaws. Parents are encouraged to use these means to assess the viability of a fetus. Do the parents really want another girl? How much of a financial burden would it be to rear a child with Down’s syndrome? Is a less than perfect child or one of the wrong gender acceptable? There are even scenarios that describe “designer babies” where parents chose the eye and hair color as well as other attributes of their children.

      Everyone knows that the media overstates everything. Surely the scientific community has a clear vision of the facts. What appears to be a fact is that the monster of mistakes and misrepresentation will NOT die. In February of 2000, textbook-writer Douglas Futuyma was accused of lying for using Haeckel's depiction of embryos in his textbook Evolutionary Biology (1998). In his defense, Futuyma wrote that he had been unaware of any discrepancies between Haeckel's drawings and actual vertebrate embryos. Only after consulting a developmental biologist did he learn of his error. Even college textbooks that use photographs of embryos to show accurate images still carry the explanation that the images show evidence for a common ancestor.

      The photos of an embryonic human, monkey, pig, lemur and a chick are accompanied by the explanation that the development of a human embryo is like a “microscopic trip through evolutionary time.” The text describes how human embryos “grow fin-like appendages and something very much like gills.” These “gill-like” features are “the legacy of a primitive fish,” and this “ is some of the most compelling evidence of evolution since Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859.” Gould and Keeton's textbook Biological Science (1987) tells students “Human embryos, for instance, have gill pouches.” The textbook Biology by Raven and Johnson states “early in their development, human embryos possess gill slits, like a fish.”

    “Early in development, human embryos are almost indistinguishable from those of fishes, and briefly display gill slits,” declares Futuyma in his book Evolutionary Biology (1998). All of these are versions of Haeckel's Biogenetic Law in which human embryos pass through a recapitulation of their “evolutionary” past. The authors are seeing what they want to see. They are projecting evolutionary theory onto embryonic evidence. The FACT is there are no gills- there are only folds on the neck of the embryo. Midway through development, all vertebrate embryos possess a series of folds in the neck region. The convex parts of the folds are called pharyngeal “arches” and the concave parts are called pharyngeal “clefts”. Pharyngeal folds are not gills. (Icons of Evolution p. 106) In reptiles, mammals and birds, pharyngeal folds are never rudimentary gills; they are not “gill-like” except in the sense that they are parallel lines in the neck region of an embryo. Gills are not embryonic structures even in fish. “Seeing” them in other vertebrate embryos is to read an adult structure back into an embryo. 

     Which says something about the resiliency of an error. It also speaks strongly to the concept that once something is written or pictured it will continue to reoccur, particularly if it meets our expectation. Futuyma stated that “Haeckel was inaccurate and misleading. However in the grand scheme of things Haeckel's inaccuracies, whether intended to deceive or not, are trivial compared to the overall message.” In other words Evolution - is true - therefore fitting the evidence to prove what we all know is true is justifiable. Futuyma's parting shot was that “Bird and mammal embryos are really more similar than the adults.” For example, “ all the vertebrate embryos. . . really do have gill slits.” How much more of the science that we have been taught as the truth is the regurgitated error of wishful thinking?

    This is not a game of pointing fingers and listing mistakes. We all make errors or rush to judgment based on what we want to believe. That however is precisely what science should avoid. National Geographic has strongly supported the Theory of Evolution and specifically that birds are the descendants of dinosaurs. Seeking to support this belief National Geographic rushed a much heralded discovery to press, without waiting for scientific review. Their proof was a fossil, purchased in China, that appeared to have the body of a primitive bird with the teeth and tail of a small terrestrial dinosaur (i.e., dromaeosaur).

The archaeoraptor, as pictured, is a wonderful image that presents exactly what the scientists hoped to see as the transition from “dinosaur-to-bird.” It contained the long bony tail of the dinosaur with the specialized chest and shoulders of birds. Responding to such an important find major news agencies began reporting that a “fierce turkey-sized animal with sharp claws and teeth” was scientific proof of the transition from dinosaurs to birds. As rapidly as the popular media heralded the fossil as clear evidence the scientific community weighed in with irate disbelief. Dr. Storrs L. Olson of the Smithsonian Institute verbally lectured the author of the article and the editor of the National Geographic. Pulling no punches Dr. Olson called the article “an all-time low for engaging in sensational, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism.” In an open letter he states that the National Geographic had been warned prior to publication that there were significant problems with the theory.

                    The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes  the                                    spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the  undisputed dinosaur                         Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurus are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of                       science fiction. The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds being  actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists                       acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased                                            proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program which is                               fast  becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age - the   paleontological equivalent of cold fusion .(Olson, 1999)

Dr. Olson’s words were prophetic as the National Geographic Society had to retract the entire article when the Archaeoraptor was revealed as a fake. Apparently free enterprise is alive and well in China. Farmers have discovered that fossil specimens are very valuable. They have also discovered that fossil hunters pay more money for certain kinds of fossils. Archaeoraptor’s only place in evolutionary history was its evolution in a Chinese farmhouse were two and possibly as many as five separate specimens were glued together. The National Geographic should be ashamed to be fooled on such a grand scale. The point is not that we should disbelieve all fossil data but that we need to use discernment. The desire to see what we want to see is a powerful motivation - even for those who claim the authority of unbiased science. 

     Galileo offended the educators of his day. He dared to propose something that went against the Aristotelian truth they had studied. They were the bureaucrats of the Middle Ages. Hell hath no fury like a teacher whose textbook is changed. The High Priests of naturalism control the American educational system. Anyone who dares to question Darwinian evolution is– denied tenure and often removed from the faculty. The movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is a documentary/exposé on what is happening in the halls of “Higher Learning”. Anyone who questions evolution or mentions its status as a theory is heavily censured if not expelled. Intelligent Design is a swear word. Those who cling to an old and outdated paradigm protest the loudest.