CalvaryBaptist Church, Bethlehem, PA                                            Dr. Robert C. Newman

September24, 2000                                                                               Biblical Seminary/IBRI

e-mail:rcnewman@ibri.org                                                                              www.ibri.org

                                                                                                                                               

SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS FOR EVOLUTION

 

FavorableEvidence for Evolution:

 

Old earth, some billions of years old

Initially no life, although period forthis now seen to be very short

Then just simple life

first prokaryotic, then eukaryotic cells

Then explosion of life at beginning of Cambrian

all animal phyla

Then fishes, followed by amphibians, reptiles,

birds and mammals, then apes, then mankind

Similarities of biochemicals also looks favorable

So does homology, similar structures

 

So WhyDoesn�t Everybody Believe in Evolution?

 

A variety of reasons, depending on person's worldview:

--Some have other information besidesscientific which raises questions for them

--Not all opponents of evolution objectfor religious reasons

e.g., Denton, Kenyon, Yockey

 

Not all who have religious reservationsfeel that these are the decisive problems; after all, there are many theistic evolutionists whothink God did it via evolution. (I think the decisive problem is scientific evidence).

 

Could so many scientists really bewrong?  Consider case ofcontinental drift, with a sudden paradigm shift in the middle of 20thcentury

 

Want to look today at scientific problemsfor evolution, particularly evolution of the "Blind Watchmaker"variety (see Richard Dawkins, Blind Watchmaker)

 

SomeScientific Problems for Evolution:

 

1. Problems GeneratingOrder by Randomness & Survival

 

Origin of life:  mutation and naturalselection will not work until one has a mechanism capable of replicatingitself.  The minimum complexity forthis seems beyond the probability resources of our universe over itshistory.  See Dembski; Ludwig;Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen; and Moreland (in bibliography).


Origin of specific biochemicals: Stanley Miller=s famous experiment is merely a verysmall first step, a few amino acids. Functional proteins have over 100 amino acids.  Making DNA and RNA is far harder.  There is also the problem of handedness (chirality).  See Shapiro and Moreland.

 

Origin of chemical processes, and organs: The problem of large Aminimal complexity.@ How does one build a system that requires many features working togetherbefore it has any function? Examples:  rotary motor inthe bacterial flagellum, blood clotting mechanism, intracell transport,vision.  These seem to be out ofrange of what can be accomplished with the number of atoms and length of timeavailable.  See Behe, Denton

 

Darwinian mechanism:  computer simulationsof mutation and natural selection do not suggest that it will do what it iscracked up to do.  See Ludwig, andDembski.

 

2. Problemsof the Fossil Record

 

Relative Lack of transitional forms: Notice we say Arelative@ lack.  No need toargue that no fossils might be transitional.  The problem is that Darwinian ABlind Watchmaker@ evolution has only a random walk tocross the gaps between the major kinds of life.  But the fossil record looks like the transitions are verysudden.

 

Fragmentary Fossil Record?  Darwin (andmany since) have argued that the lack of transitions is due to the fragmentarynature of the fossil record.  Butthere are nearly ¼ billion fossils collected and housed in the variousmuseums.  How detailed a picturecan one construct using ¼ billion pixels?

 

The Shape of the Fossil Record: The Darwinian model (includingneo-Darwinism and Punctuated Equilibrium) predicts that the tree of life willbe produced by the divergence of species into genera, genera into families...and classes into phyla by the accumulation of small differences.  The actual data show that all animalphyla were formed suddenly at the Cambrian explosion and none since then, theopposite of the prediction.

 

Small populations:  It is true that anyparticular mutation is more likely to become dominant in a small popu­lationthan in a large one, since random fluctua­tions from average are larger ina small popula­tion.  Comparetosses of coins for small number vs large.  The number dependency for the relative size of suchfluctuations is N-1/2. This is used by evolutionists today to argue that all the significanttransitions took place in small populations, which we would not expect to showup in the fossil record.  But forsuch changes as the differences between higher levels of the biologicalclassification scheme, many mutations are neces­sary, probably hundreds orthousands. The relative chance of getting (say) 5 of the right mutations in agiven population varies with the size of the population as N5, sothat a large population is much more likely to have the mutations than a smallone.  This more than cancels outthe benefit of small populations.


 


Punctuation: As Gould, Eldridge and others have pointed out, the fossil recordtypically shows sudden transitions to new forms rather than gradualtransitions.  Geneticists have notbeen able to figure out how such transitions could occur.  This does not favor evolution as anundirected process.

 

Stasis:  The fossil record is also characterizedby stasis, that is,that each particular form of life (after appearing suddenly) does not changesignificantly over its history in the record, either eventually becoming ex­tinct,or surviving till today.  Thissuggests that mutation and natural selection is basically a conservativemechanism, as confirmed by computer simulations.

 

Islands of function:  Living organisms andthe fossil record suggest that each living thing is surrounded by a multitudeof alternative designs that won=t work.  They are islands of function in the midst of a sea ofdysfunction.  Undirected evolutionmust assume that these are "isthmuses" of function rather than"is­lands," or that the islands are close enough together forsingle mutations to be able to jump from one to another.  But how does one get from two-chamberedto 3-cham­bered to 4-chambered hearts, from push-pull lungs to flow-throughlungs, from black & white to color vision, from legs to wings, from scalesto feathers, etc.?  Many of thesethings have no intermediate forms, yet numerous coordinated changes have to be made for each towork.

 

Some Conclusions:

 

ProblemsGenerating Order:

 

Origin of Life

Origin of Specific Biochemicals

Origin of Processes and Organs

 

Problems withthe Fossil Record:

 

Relative Lack of Transitional Fossils

Shape of the Fossil Record

Inadequacy of Small Populations to Explain Large Changes

Punctuation and Stasis

Islands of Function

 

Worldview: If you hold tenaciously that we live in a universe with no God, thatthere is no mind behind it all, then all appearance of design in nature must be explained as merely the deceptiveproducts of "blind watchmaker" evolution.  But of course, your satisfaction may be misplaced.  And how could you ever find that out,if you never look at the scientific problems facing a "no-god" world­view?

 

Mind: If you admit these problems indicate aMind behind the universe, then that Mind may have worked by purely naturalprocesses or by occasional abrupt means.

 

God: But having a God raises the question ofwhat life is all about and what am I going to do about it.

 


BIBLIOGRAPHY:

 

Behe, Michael.  Darwin's Black Box.  NewYork:  Free Press, 1996.

Buell, Jon and Virginia Hearn, eds., Darwinism:Science or Philosophy?  Rich­ardson, TX: Foundation forThought and Ethics, 1994. hb, 229 pp.

Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon. OfPandas and People:  The CentralQuestion of Biological Origins, 2nd ed.  Dallas,TX:  Haughton, 1993. hb, 170 pp.

Dembski, William, ed.  Mere Creation:  Faith, Science, and Intelligent Design. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998.

Denton, Michael J. Nature=s Destiny: How the Laws of BiologyReveal Purpose in the Universe.  New York: FreePress, 1998.  hb, 454 pp.

Hayward, Alan.  Creation and Evolution:  Rethinking the Evidence from Science and the Bible. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995. pb, 232 pp.

Ludwig, Mark A.  Computer Viruses, Artificial Life, and Evolution. American Eagle, POB 41404, Tucson, AZ 85717; 1993. pb, 373 pp.

Johnson, Phillip E.  Darwin on Trial. InterVarsity, 1993. pb, 220 pp.

Moreland, J. P., ed., The CreationHypothesis:  Scientific Evidencefor an Intelligent Designer. InterVarsity, 1994. pb, 335 pp.

Newman, Robert C. and Herman J.Eckelmann, Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth. Hatfield, PA:  IBRI, 1991.pb, 154 pp.

Newman, Robert C. and John L. Wiester,with Janet and Jonathan Moneymaker, What=s Darwin Got to Do with It?  A Friendly Conversation on Evolution. InterVarsity, 2000. pb, 146 pp.

Ross, Hugh.  The Creator and the Cosmos. Colorado Springs:  Navpress,1993. pb, 185 pp.

Shapiro, Robert.  Origins:  A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life in the Universe. New York:  Summit,1986.  hb, c250 pp.

Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley,and Roger L. Olsen.  The Mysteryof Life's Origin:  ReassessingCurrent Theories.  Lewis and Stanley, 1992.  pb, 228 pp.

Wiester, John L.  The Genesis Connection. Hatfield, PA:  IBRI, 1983,1992.  pb, 254 pp.

Wonderly, Daniel E.  Neglect of Geological Data:  Sedimenta­ry Strata Compared withYoung-Earth Creationist Writ­ings.  Hatfield, PA:  IBRI, 1987.  pb, 130 pp.

Yockey, Hubert P. Information Theoryand Molecular Biology.  Cambridge, UK:  Cambridge University Press, 1992.