Creationism or evolution

In thousands of works, scientists proved and convinced the US Supreme Court in 1986 to oppose the teaching of the Bible as its own language as science

by George S. BakkenIt, NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCEINC

Not everyone knows that Charles Darwin intended to become a priest when he began his studies at Cambridge, and that the Anglican Church honored him by burying him in Westminster Abbey next to Isaac Newton. Many of the scientists held strong religious beliefs, but they read the creation story in Genesis as Newton did in 1681 to Thomas Barnett: "As for Moses, he described reality in vulgar language. When natural causes are placed in God's hands He uses them in His work. But I don't think they were enough for creation."

Mainstream Christianity finds reasonable and acceptable the assumption that science should only explain creation within the limitations of natural laws that God might have used as tools. These explanations must be mechanistic, but do not imply atheism at all. One cannot expect divine intervention in solving math problems, but this does not make algebra atheistic. The ultra-literal explanation of the Book of Genesis by followers of the "Creation Theory" presented by, among others, Dr. Don Gish and others at the Creation Research Institute, distorts both religion and science, and is not acceptable among creationists.

In thousands of works, scientists proved and convinced the US Supreme Court in 1986 to oppose the teaching of the Bible as its own language as science. In a previous trial, the bishop of Arkansas, and the heads of the Methodist, Episcopal, Catholic, African Methodist Episcopal, Presbyterian Church, the American Jewish Congress, and many religious groups, sued Arkansas to ban the doctrine of "scientific creation" because that provision allows the infiltration of specific religious doctrines. to the schools. Citing the Arkansas law, Judge William R. Overton (5/1/82): "This is clearly an effort to introduce the biblical version of creation into the school curriculum.... The evidence for establishing the definition of 'science of creation' is the first 11 chapters of Genesis. The proposed concept is a simple acceptance of the fundamentalist version of the Book of Genesis." "The creationists' methods do not advocate collecting data, weighing it against conflicting scientific data, and ultimately reaching a conclusion. Instead, they take literally what is written in Genesis and try to find scientific support for it." "The evidence supporting creation science mainly includes efforts to discredit the theory of evolution through the circulation of data and theories that have been in front of the scientific community for decades. The arguments put forward by the creationists are not based on new scientific evidence."

scientific decisions

It would be very helpful to examine some examples of why the scientific decision-making process led scientists to accept the theory of evolution versus "scientific creation". The scientists attack a problem by inventing several hypotheses - speculative assumptions. Then comes the step of choosing the test that will try to disprove the predictions of each of the assumptions with a number of independent observations. After making the observations, the scientists abandon or at best make changes to all the theories whose predictions did not stand up to the test of experiments. The confirmed assumptions are now used to create the theory that they explain in the best way. Theories may change over time. Also theories that were very popular at the time. For example, Newton's theory of motion was accepted as an answer until it failed at high speeds and accelerations and in strong gravitational fields. Albert Einstein's theory of relativity replaced Newton's theory and included it as a version for low speeds.

Predictions and observations are sometimes made indirectly, as scientific theories involve microscopic or distant bodies in space or time. For example, the electron is too small to be observed directly, but the assumption of the existence of the electron allows correct prediction of the operation of electronic devices, etc. Similarly, history cannot be repeated, but the assumption that evolution happened allows us to correctly predict a large number of discovered fossils, biochemical structures, etc. However, there is always uncertainty regarding the reality of both the electron and evolution, but both are accepted far beyond a reasonable doubt.

Creation science and models of evolution"

Evolution is not the theory of everything, and it does not refer to the origin of the universe. In general, the theory of the evolution of life claims that all organisms are related and have one ancestor or a limited number of primary cells. Through many processes, including accidental variation between animals of the same species, natural selection of successful variants, new forms and a large number of species develops over time. The creationists did not clearly formulate the models of the creation science theory, but the accepted point of view can be found in the abstract from the July 1980 issue of the journal of the Institute for Creation Studies: Acts and Facts. According to the article, the theory is the same as the one presented in the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.

Earth's history: 4.5 billion years or only 6,000?

The Institute of Creation Science is very clear in this area: "The only way we can find out the true age of the Earth is for God to tell us himself." Since he told us, very clearly in the Holy Scriptures, that it is a matter of several thousand years, and no more than that. This should close once and for all all the basic questions about the chronology of the Earth. To support it they use a selection of dating methods based on processes whose error level is known. For example, many of them use cyclical processes like the hour hand on a clock. The time shown on the watch repeats itself every 12 hours, so it cannot be used as a calendar. Similarly, periodic events cannot be used to estimate the age of the Earth. There is a lot of evidence for the ancient age of the earth. The slate found in the Green River in western Wyoming includes 6 million layers of varved limestone. The particles of these layers are microscopic and it takes many days to stabilize them in water. Similar precipitation forms today, and each cycle represents one year. In order to create each such layer with the help of the flood and to include all history in the 6,000 years that the Bible assigns to us, it is necessary to create such a second layer.

Another indication is the presence of radioactive isotopes in the rocks. Each of them shows that the land was indeed created at some time. However, out of the 48 isotopes that have a half-life of from a thousand to a hundred million years, many should have remained here in large quantities, if the earth was only a few thousand years old, only three such isotopes remained and in tiny amounts. Five others are created by cosmic radiation and one is created by neutrons emitted from uranium atoms. All 23 radioactive isotopes that have a lifetime of over a hundred million years are still present here in relatively large quantities. Since both the calcium layers and radioactive decay are well known phenomena, they can be used for accurate and consistent dating. For example, P.A. Olsen (Science, issue 234, pp. 842-848 from 1986) studied the sediments over 40 million years in the Newark Basin in New Jersey, and found a match between the isotope dating and the dates given by the sediment record. To a considerable extent, he found a connection between variations in the sediment layer that resulted from movements of the earth's crust, which shape the calendars and clocks. He found variations with cycles of 125,000, 25,000, 44,000, 100,000 and even 400,000 years. This corresponds to the Milankovitz cycles that speak of irregularities in the movement of the earth around the sun 21 thousand, 41 thousand, 95 thousand, 123 thousand and 413 thousand years ago, and are explained as small disturbances resulting from passing stars). The Milankovitz cycle affects the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth. The changes in solar radiation also create changes in the amount of rain and therefore also in the amount of fossils that sink.

Could a global flood have created the fossil record?

The first hypothesis that scientists thought of when they found marine sediments in continental areas was that the flood described in the book of Genesis is responsible for a geological interval and a fossil record. In fact, this was the explanation for the presence of fossilized seashells high in the Alps. Anyway, in 1757, James Parsons and others tried to draw a conclusion about the time of the flood with the help of the fossils. If it occurred in the spring, then it would be possible to find remains of flowers and young fruits, ripe fruits and nuts - if it occurred in the fall, however, none of the two were found. They therefore suggested that the ripe fruits were mixed and transported to the tropics. Therefore it will be necessary to find remains of marine and terrestrial animals together. In fact, they found separate fossils, as expected from land creatures that floated into the sea. These and other difficulties led the scientists to accept the uniformitarian geology theory of James Hutton (earth theory) and Charles Lyle (the principles of geology).

The Institute for Scientific Creation model again offers the flood theory, and they too fail to explain simple facts. For example, if all species formed at one moment before the Flood, then fossils deeper in the geological record (and therefore from before the Flood) should be identical to later creatures. Extinction can therefore be confirmed, but not the creation of new creatures. Of course, the fossil record shows both extinctions and the appearance of new creatures, with the number of unfamiliar animals increasing the deeper you dig. The 19th century creationist geologist George Cobia proposed that there were multiple creation events to accomplish this. Henry Morris, director of the ICR, said that the change in development is explained by 1. the development of the habitats; 2. Resistance to gravitational settling in the flood water; and 3 the ability to escape the flood waters. However, these predictions that the dolphin and the ichthyosaurus, both air-breathing marine creatures of the same size, shape and purpose, and living in the same habitat could be found at the same time in the same place. In fact, there was a series of transitions in fossils from the Mesozoic era that led to the Aethiosaurus, which were covered by sediments from the Cenozoic era, and again a series of creatures that led to the dolphin. Similar and specific tests like these failed to answer the flood theory, but succeeded in passing the theory of unified geology.

Gaps in the fossil record

Duane Gish, ICR's chief scientist, claims that the gap in the fossil record (i.e. a large number of examples in which the entire series of intermediate creatures between two species is not found) proves that species were created through an experimental process. This interpretation of the fossil record proceeds from the assumption that the Earth is ancient and species are new are created through a series of acts of creation. This is a progressive creation model, and not the model accepted by the ICR. It is strange that Gish uses this interpretation because his boss, Henry Morris said "Therefore, progressive creation, ap because it gives a better picture than the theistic creation in its terminology is even causes more opposition to true creationists. Gish almost certainly uses this argument because of the cracks in the ICR flood model. Gaps in the fossil record are not even a critical test for evolution against progressive creation because evolution also predicts gaps. There are about 2 million described species of extant animals Today, only 200 of them are described in the fossil record, therefore, it is impossible to provide a detailed history of all living creatures. This is because we have not yet uncovered all the fossils. It is difficult to find a dinosaur bone, even though we have been looking for them for 150 years, 40 percent of the known species found in the last twenty years. There may still be many types of dinosaurs to be found. Second, sedimentary rocks were formed locally in lakes, oceans, and river deltas, so that many species of creatures that lived in surface areas never became accustomed. Third, most of the findings have been destroyed in the meantime. Therefore, finding all the records is impossible.

Anyway, there is a critical test. Evolution predicts that at least some complete series will be found, while the ICR claims that none will ever be found. In fact there are entire series in excellent condition. The evolution of the horse is known in sharp detail from the Hyracotherium (Eohippus) to the modern horse. Creation "scientists" were forced to claim that these series are only variations within the genus. So the rhinoceros, the tapir and the horse are members of the same species, but this only happens when you go back in time to the hyrchotrium. All these fossils were found in the correct order in both the stratigraphic and radioisotopic dating. Another critical test is Darwin's prediction that "our ancestors lived on the African continent (The Descent of Man, p. 158 in the English version). Many bones and some complete plaques now connect modern man with African Australopithecus. Some of the Australopithecus had brains the size and shape of chimpanzees.

Are new species being created today?

Another critical test for evolution against the creation theory of the ICR or also against progressive creation is that evolution predicts the fact that new species are created in waves today. Unlike the creationists' vague "species", the definition of a species is clear: a population in which (1) the parents give birth to young similar to them, (1) they interbreed, and (3) they often seem special. New species of plants are routinely created as part of the work of agriculture. New types and new species. Trichoscal (tritical) is now an important plant for agriculture. A fly (Rhagoletis pomonella) which normally feeds on the fruit of the rosehip during its larval stage, gave birth to a strain that damages apples (apple maggot) about 170 years ago. This breed, which originated in the Hudson River Valley, spread throughout the eastern United States and the Midwest. The species of flies that feed on thistles and the one that feeds on apples today mate and lay eggs at different times and therefore they rarely breed with each other. There are clear genetic differences, and the apple maggot is now on its way to becoming a new species. Most people who have a toy dog ​​know about a new type of microorganism - Canine parvovirus, a deadly disease of dogs that developed from a similar virus that only attacked cats in the seventies.

'Real Gaps in the Fossil Record?

"Evolution - the fossils say no!" Tsetat Gish Stephen J. Gould of Howard. Maor quotes Gold: "The fossil record and the rapid changes in it do not support gradual change." What Dr. Gould actually wrote was: "The fossil record and the rapid changes in it do not support gradual changes, but the principle of natural selection does not require it - natural selection can act quickly." And this is just a routine example of using quotes out of context to "support" their position. Always check the source. They also like to use out-of-date sources or articles that were later found to be in error.

Gould's true position supports evolution, and is supported by the examples of recently evolved species. Fossil transitions between species were usually abrupt because in the past, as today, new species evolve rapidly. You have to be lucky to find fossils from the place and time when the new species evolved. Moreover, the rapid and gradual evolution of several species of snails over 5,000 to 50,000 years is known to us in detail. Again, both the icr and gradual creation rule out any possibility of finding such transitional series. The differences between the sexes are trivial in every Bible. For example, one such rapid divergence is the replacement of the Neanderthals with modern humans in Europe. Today it is known that the two species evolved from a common ancestor, tens of thousands of years in the past, very close together, groups that did not interbreed the animals at the same time can be considered separate species. However, the Neanderthals buried their dead in graves and offered them tools and flowers, and this indicated religious belief. And if religion does not define beings as human beings, what does?

entropy

Gish claims that the second law of entropy makes evolution impossible. The argument is based on classical thermodynamics, but it is only valid when it comes to a closed system. If we take a complete system, the system takes care of comparing the conditions between places with high and low energy. The level of order decreases in such systems. If this were true of Earth, life would be impossible. If an egg were created that starts as a random mixture of protein and yolk, but organizes itself to become a chicken if it is kept at 30 degrees for three weeks. If the second law were in effect, the chicken would be composed of useless chemical substances, and the only part that would organize itself would become carbon dioxide and water. Similarly, open thermodynamic systems can be organized using "imported" energy. Your bedroom tends to be messy, but it may become more organized when you bring your energy into it and clean it up. The entropy in the room decreases thanks to your efforts, but by an amount equal to the amount of energy you used for cleaning. The earth imports huge amounts of energy from the sun, and only a tiny fraction of it is used to create the biological order. Ilya Prigogine received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1977 when he showed that thermodynamic systems can import energy, and that open systems far from equilibrium (that is, they have an excess of available energy) not only can but sometimes must produce organized structures. Only the laws of chemistry and physics are sufficient for this. Calculate a drop of salt water that evaporates due to the imported heat. The salt changes from liquid to solid. The overall result is an increase in entropy, but the salt particle itself has become more organized. This is a direct consequence of the second law of thermodynamics. This law, it turns out, became the device for creation. It is almost certain that the creationists claim that even without the prohibition arising from the second law that the possibility of creating functional biological molecules (enzymes for example) is impossible. A typical enzyme includes one hundred million amino acids, but all of them are only combinations of about twenty different molecules out of billions of possibilities, however, it is almost certain that the chance that such a particular order will develop in one step by chance is 1 divided by ten followed by 130 zeros, very impressive, but you have to remember that the calculation is good within the limits of the assumptions that have been made into it For many years all calculations have shown that bees cannot fly. The bees seem to be using tricks that the early aerodynamicists didn't know about. Just as the bees fly despite the aerodynamic theory, functional enzymes are also created all the time. Microorganisms have acquired new enzymes that will enable them to digest the toxic waste that does not appear in nature (chlorines and hydrocarbon fluorides), and they are a very important means of controlling infections. Susumi Ono (Sci. 81:2421-2425, 1984 .Proc. Natl. Acad) found that such an enzyme, , oligomer hydrolase, r nylon linear was formed by a frameshift mutation. A frameshift mutation shuffles the entire structure of the protein, and thus the enzyme randomly rearranges itself. As expected, this enzyme is far from perfect and its efficiency is only one percent of a typical enzyme, but the important thing is that it worked. The mistake made by Gish is to need a certain sequence to create everything at once and give perfect results. It misses the gradual improvements where the enzymes are imperfect but work, and therefore survive natural selection. Intermediate steps can function because many amino acid sequences confer the same enzymatic functionality.

The theory of species classification (taxonomy) at the molecular level

Because regardless of which amino acid is used in many of the sites within the enzyme, "silent" mutations often occur that have no visible effects. It is possible to examine family trees with specific enzymes, such as cytochrome-c. Creatures with enzymes that differ by a few amino acids are located in close branches, while those with many differences are located in more distant branches. Usually such a test gives the same tree as the fossil record. Such studies place humans and chimpanzees on adjacent branches. This is also an example of a prediction of Darwin's theory that is confirmed in a beautiful way based on laboratory tests.

In July 1982, Gish confronted Russell Doolittle on public television. In response to the latter argument, Gish argued that blood proteins are more similar between bulldogs and humans than between chimpanzees and humans. Its source was a story by Garniss Curtis at the Wenner-Kern conference in Austria in July 1971. But it was just a bad joke - it was a rumor about a study, the results of which were not published nor could they be returned due to a terrible tragedy - the frog was an enchanted prince. Gish defended himself by saying he thought Curtis was serious. I believe that Gish, who made his cool by going around telling jokes claiming it was real science, couldn't tell the difference. This is just an example of why you should always check the source of the claims made by the Creation Research Institute. The results are sometimes very interesting.