Science in Christian Perspective
Evolution: Required or Optional in a Science Course?
JOHN N. MOORE
Department of Natural Science,
Michigan State University East
Lansing, Michigan
From: JASA 22 (September 1970): 82-87.
Students, teachers, and parents encounter emphatic presentation of
organic evolution
as fact. An objective pattern of opposition, based on scientific work, to this
type of teaching of organic evolution is provided. Two theories of evolution:
the general and the special, are explicated. Each theory of evolution
is examined
with regard to reasonable predictions that can be stated within limits of the
normal scientific viewpoint. Conclusions are reached that the fossil
record (the
historical record) cannot be used to support the general theory of evolution;
there are no intermediate or transitional forms in the fossil record. Data of
the so-called fossil "series", gene combinations and recombinations,
hybrization, mutation, migration, isolation, distribution, and selection may be
interpreted from the viewpoint of gradual evolutionism or
instantaneous creationism.
The general theory of evolution should, at most, be optional for a
science course,
while the special theory of evolution is an appropriately required
area of study
to exemplify characteristic scientific procedures and findings.
INTRODUCTION
Many Christian parents are asking these days, should evolution he required or
optional in a science course? A corollary question might he raised:
Is there any
basis in scientific work for an objective answer to this question? Across the
nation parental attention has mounted regarding methods of teaching evolution
in science courses. Such increased attention has been a result of
increased adoptions
of the BSCS textbooks produced under the direction of leaders of the American
Institute of Biological Sciences.
Actually criticisms of the teaching of evolution have been heard for a long
time
in many lands. Scholars criticized application of Darwin's ideas in
his day, professors
pointed out fallacies in Haeckcl's reasoning, and so likewise for
social Darwinists.
Many sources of documentation are available to substantiate this statement.
And within the last few years, even biologists themselves have been
highly critical
and have written expressly in opposition to monophyletic evolutionary thought.
Wistar Institute in Philadelphia published a Symposium Monograph in
1967 entitled,
"Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of
Evolution".
And McGraw-Hill, Inc., has published in a house organ, Scientific Research, two
such articles: "Heresy in the halls of biology: mathematicians
question Darwinism"
(November, 1967) and "Thinking the unthinkable: are
evolutionists wrong?"
(September 1, 1969).
I mention these few references simply to point out that evolution is
under criticism
once more (I should say still under criticism, since criticisms by
scientists
of evolution and natural selection in every decade since Darwin's day
can he documented
thoroughly). In point of fact, of course, evolution should he
criticized in accordance
with the tenets of scientific attitude and operative scientific
methodologies.
Especially apropos the question whether evolution should be required
or optional
in a science course, I want to aver that this question may be
answered on scientific
grounds, as should be the case for a subject so much discussed by men who call
themselves scientists. That this question may be resolved on a scientific basis
is a crucial fact which opponents of the so-called theory of evolution should
affirm loudly, to be followed out in practice. To set a possible
pattern of opposition
to the teaching of evolution is the purpose of this position paper.
I feel that evolution should not be taught as if it were observable, or as if someone had actually seen one animal form change into another animal form.
One brief interjection as added introduction. Ideas expressed in this
paper should
not be confused with the position maintained by those who would try to prevent
the teaching of evolution. I do not support censorship. I do not
support removal
of the teaching of evolution from school curricula. Rather I assert
that evolution
must be mentioned since it is such an ancient idea of men, but I maintain that
the important question is, "How should evolution be
taught?" The manner
of teaching is all important. I feel that evolution should
not be taught as if it were observable, or as if someone had actually seen one
animal form change into another animal form.
DEFINITIONS
Although this is a general position paper, without extensive
documentation, some
attention must be given to definition of terms, at least briefly. In
the following
discussion I will use definitions which were proposed by British physiologist
C. A. Kerkut in his book, Implications of Evolution, published by
Pergamon Press
(1960). These definitions are now recognized by responsible critics of theories
of evolution.
First, a definition of the General Theory of Evolution, which is the
amoeba-to-man
thesis. According to this theory, all living forms in the world have risen from
a single source which itself came from an inorganic beginning. Thus the first
living cell "evolved" into complex multicellular forms of life; these
gave rise to all forms of invertebrates; in turn, invertebrates
"evolved"
into vertebrates; fish into amphihia, amphibia into reptiles,
reptiles into birds
and mammals, early mammals into primates, and finally primates
"evolved"
into man. Unmistakably this is the basic meaning of the term evolution.
Second, I would define, as does Kerkut, the Special Theory of Evolution, which
states that many living animals (and plants) can be observed, over the course
of time, to undergo changes so that new varieties are formed. This
can be demonstrated
in certain eases by experiments, controlled experiments. Yet it is not clear at
all whether such limited changes that bring about modified speciation
are 0f the
same nature as those involved in the appearance of new phyla, new classes, new
orders, new families, new genera, and on the invertebrate level, appearance of
new species. Is it possible that so-called "speciation" is actually
"genetic variation"? If so, let us say so. In short, scientists know
of no broad transition from species to species, but most specifically
only variation
to variation.
And the question might be asked, what is science? The word "science"
comes from the Latin for knowledge. A formal definition of science
from the Oxford
Dictionary reads as follows:
A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated tenths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which ineludes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain.
Scientific activity involves, from this definition, facts which can be observed
or demonstrated and laws, which have been demonstrated also, by means
of trustworthy
methods for discovery. At the core of scientific method or methods is
experimental
repeatability or reproducibility. Other synonyms for this core idea
are predictability
and control. Of course, it is true that scientific method is built upon basic
assumptions of all scientists, such as uniformity of nature or cause
and effect;
and one can recognize theoretical assumptions and even experimental assumptions
involved in experimental repeatability. Nevertheless, the heart of scientific
method is the problem-hypothesis-test process. The purpose of all this activity
is knowledge, explanation, or understanding of phenomena under
investigation.
Scientific method necessarily involves predictions. Predictions, to be useful
in scientific methodology, most be subject to test empirically. The pertinent
question to ask, therefore, is whether this is the case with regard
to the General
Theory of Evoluinn? Or with regard to the Special Theory of Evolution? In sum:
Do any experiments designed to show "evolution" yield
predictable consequences?
FOSSIL RECORD CONSIDERED
The fossil record is the prime source of so-called evidence for the
General Theory
of Evolution. The fossil record is interpreted as the record of what
has existed,
of what has happened. Many authorities agree the decisive "evidence"
for the General Theory of Evolution must be based upon what they consider to be
historical, that is, the fossil record.
The very essence of evolutionary thinking is slow change. Therefore,
I would expect
to find, I would predict, that investigators would find in the fossil record a
gradual transition from the simplest to the most complex. This is the
ma/or prediction
from the general theory. In fact, if the General Theory of Evolution is to have
any empirical hasis whatsoever, such a gradual transition in the fossil record
must be found.
In other words, systematic or regular gaps must he absent from the
fossil record,
and transitional forms at some stage between all phyla, classes,
orders, families,
genera, and species roust be found. Such transitional fonns must be
found if the
General Theory of Evolution, defined already as amoeba-to-man, has occurred. Of
course I must admit that some sporadic gaps might he expected in the
fossil record.
The geological record is not complete. However, there
must be no regular or systematic gaps in the fossil record. Is this
actually the
case? How do predictions of the existence of transitional forms survive tests
of observation?
EARLIEST INVERTEBRATES IN CAMBRIAN STRATA
The earliest or most ancient geological period in which indisputable
fossils are
found is known as the Cambrian Period according to the generally adopted
geological
time scale. Noteworthy is the fact that every major invertebrate form of life
is found in Cambrian strata. In fact, billions and billions of
fossils are found
in Cambrian strata. Yet not a single indisputable fossil prior to the Cambrian
Period has been found! Not a trace of any record of pre-Cambrian life
can be found
of indisputable ancestry to the well-identified Cambrian invertebrate
forms. Paleontologist
G. G. Simpson terms the absence of pre-Cambrian fossils "the major mystery
of the history of life".
Further, no single-celled organism is considered simple anymore as a result of
analysis through the electron microscope. Actually the fossil record contains
remains of life which ranged from the less complex to the more
complex, not from
the simple to the complex!
If there is a "mystery" about the absence of evidence of ancestors of
Cambrian life, there is still another even greater difficulty which arises when
the prediction about the presence of transitional forms
in the fossil record is tested. There is a systematic and universal absence of
any transitional forms between all higher categories of life, that is, between
all phyla, all classes, all orders, and almost all families. Just
where the fossil
record is needed the most, the evidence does not support the claims
of proponents
of gradual evolution.
Transitions would have required thousands of generations and millions of years,
according to the General Theory of Evolution, and the fossil record
should reveal
an abundance of transitional forms. However such transitional forms cannot he
found! Actually sudden appearance of different kinds of animals is indicated by
the fossil record! In point of fact, transitional forms between the
invertebrate
phyla, which appear suddenly in the Cambrian Period strata, have
never been found.
Furthermore, since vertebrates appear supposedly in the fossil record
more recently
than invertebrates and are more complex in organization, proponents
of the General
Theory of Evolution claim that vertebrates "evolved" from
invertebrates.
Then transitions from the invertebrate, either from animals which had
hard outer
shells and soft inner bodies or those which were simple soft-bodied forms, to
vertebrates with a soft outer body and hard inner parts or skeleton would have
been a tremendous transition, indeed, and should be abundantly
documented in the
fossil record, if such transitions actually took place. However, not a single
such transitional form has ever been found.
The earliest vertebrate fish is found in the fossil record as 100% vertebrate.
Amphibia appear more "recently" in the fossil record than fish. But
the amphibia appear 100% as amphibians, and no one would confuse them
with fish.
Not a single transitional form has ever been found! And the same flat assertion
may be made in summary of other vital transitions, such as amphibia to reptile,
reptile to birds, and reptile to mammals.
For instance, not a single fossil in which forelimbs are "evolving"
into wings, or scales into feathers, has ever been found. These and
other necessary
transitions, such as hind feet into perching feet, and heavy
reptilian hones into
light avian bones, must be found in transitional forms, if the General Theory
of Evolution is to be presented as part of significant scientific
knowledge.
No one has produced yet a single fossil with halfway wings or a
fossil of an animal
showing a transition half-way between the cold-blooded, sealed reptile and the
warm blooded, feathered bird. If reptiles "evolved" into
birds, thousands
of such bizarre transitional forms should be found in the fossil record without
difficulty. And not even the fossil Arehaeopterix can qualify as a transitional
form, because it apparently had a bird-like skull, perching feet and
fully developed
wings with feathers. It was in the fullest sense a bird. It was no
more a connecting
form between reptile and bird than the bat is between mammal and
bird. As Simpson
has confirmed, every other fossil bird ever found was a completely
bird-like form.
EVOLUTION PROPONENTS MIGHT ARGUE
Proponents of evolutionary theory in the general sense may want to
argue at this
point that successful predictions have been made with respect to the
fossil record.
Some might be inclined to argue that because
of the concept of evolution men have been aided in seeking fossil
remains in-between
those already located and identified. For instance the so-called
horse "series"
or different elephant specimens might be pointed to by evolutionary proponents
as results of successful predictions regarding the fossil record. Because some
specimens were located, then proponents of evolutionary theory are
wont to claim
that researchers were aided by evolutionary theory to go to specific
rock layers
and look for possible in-between specimens.
However, the horse "series" does not display evolution; the so-called
horse series does not serve as an example of the General Theory of Evolution.
I concede that men have thought they were using the General Theory of Evolution
when they looked at specific rock layers for inbetween specimens of
horse or horselike
remains. But careful analysis of their work and reports brings out
that the so-called
series of horses from possible dog-size and five toes, on through
supposed changes
to three toes, and then large horses with one toe only of functional
use, exemplify
only variational change within one kind or form of complex organism,
namely horses.
The so-called five, three and present one-toed horses are all horses when the
discussion is concluded. Therefore no evidence, either direct or
circumstantial,
has been presented for the General Theory of Evolution, which requires change
from one form into another form.
The fossil record reveals (1) absence of types considered to be most primitive and ancestral to invertebrate life, (2) sudden appearance of the major taxonomic groups, and (3) an amazing absence of the many transitional forms required by the major prediction from the general theory.
No change from one animal form into another recognizable animal form has been
shown or reported. Only a constancy 0f form or kind has been
displayed if we accept
the so-called fossil evidence as reliable for horse ancestry of the
present form.
Thus evolutionary proponents have not made any successful predictions regarding
the fossil record, as far as the General Theory of Evolution is concerned.
DOCUMENTATION OF NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS
Clear documentation for this position is available
in a recent publication in England. I refer to The Fossil
Record (A Symposium with Documentation), jointly sponsored by the
Geological Society
of London and the Palaeontulogical Association of England, published in 1967 by
the Geological Society of London (Burlington House, London, W 1). I
am indebted
to Professor Father Vincent J. O'Brien, science master at Castlenock College,
County Dublin, Ireland and chairman of the Association of Irish
Teachers of Science,
for calling my attention to this thorough scientific work.
In this research volume, some 120 scientists, all
specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800
pages to present
the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. Also
these specialists prepared 71 highly instructive and authoritative charts which
are included throughout the chapters of the honk. The conclusive generalization
which may be drawn from these charts is as follows: Each type of
plant and animal
is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other types.
Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly
in the fossil record. For example, mammals appear in the so-called
Eocene division
and are as diverse then as researchers find them to he today. Whales,
bats, horses,
primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first
appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common
ancestor, much less
of a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor. And the same is
true of the
sudden appearance of about 50 families of flowering plants in the
socalled Cretaceous
division of the accepted geological time scale.
Many paragraphs could be used to summarize the scientifically
documented information
about plants and animals in the fossil record. But I want to make the
point that
knowledge of the content of the above cited book published in 1967 is
not recent.
Specialists in the proper fields have possessed most of these facts
for decades.
And proponents of the General Theory of Evolution, who are familiar
with the facts
of paleontology, admit existence of gaps between all higher
categories. They admit
that this is an undeniable fact of the fossil record.
AUTHORITIES RECOGNIZE GAPS
Simpson has said, "It is a feature of the known
fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly ...............
Gaps among known orders, classes, and phyla are systematic and almost
always large."
This is a very important statement by this specialist. Simpson said
the gaps are
systematic. But this is precisely what cannot be allowed if the General Theory
of Evolution is to he supported empirically.
The careful critic is able to assert quite accurately that there is no empirical evidence in existence to support the General Theory of Evolution,
Prof. Alfred S. Rnmer of Harvard University has said, "Links are missing
just where we most fervently desire them and it is all too probable that many
links will continue to be missing," in the hook Genetics, Paleontology and
Evolution (p. 11). And the late Dr. R. B. Goldschmidt, a geneticist, spoke of
the paleontological record by writing, "When a new phylum, class or order
appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological
time) diversification
so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and
without apparent
transitions." ("Evolution as Viewed by One Geneticist", American
Scientist, Vol. 40, 1952, p. 97)
These men are authorities in their fields and each
has recognized that gaps appear in the fossil record, systematic
gaps; links are
missing, and groups of organisms appear suddenly and without apparent
transitions.
Thus with regard to the General Theory of Evolution, instead of a
transition from
lowest to highest, the fossil record reveals:
(1) absence of types considered to he most primitive and ancestral to
invertebrate
life.
(2) sudden appearance of the major taxonomic groups, and
(3) an amazing absence of the many transitional forms required by the major prediction
from the general theory. The historical record, rather than
supporting the General
Theory of Evolution, is actually incompatible with the theory.
Is the General Theory of Evolution really part of scientific
activity? Scientific
activity involves facts which can be observed or demonstrated by
means of trustworthy
methods of discovery. There is no question about the discovery of
remains of plants
and animals which are identified as fossils. Thus the discovery of fossils and
the organization of the remains based on similarities to living
organisms is all
part of solid scientific activity. But the core of scientific work is
experimental
repeatability which, as already noted, is synonymous with
predictability and control.
Where are the demonstrated or observed experiments on relationship
among or between
fossils, or for that matter among or between fossils and living
things? Such control
of events is totally impossible. There are breeding gaps in addition
to the already
recognized gaps in the fossil groups. No predictions of breeding
results are possible
with fossils. And no predictable transitional forms according to the
General Theory
of Evolution may be found in the fossil record.
Thus the careful critic is able to assert quite accurately that there
is no empirical
evidence in existence to support the General Theory of Evolution,
when it is understood
to mean the amoebato-man thesis, or the change of one animal form into another
animal form, or one plant form into another plant form.
Should evolution be required or optional in a science course? As far
as scientific
activity is concerned, the General Theory of Evolution should not be part of a
science course. The General Theory of Evolution should at most be optional for
a science course.
Is the General Theory of Evolution more properly a part of the subject area of
Philosophy? Yes. The impact of the General Theory of Evolution on
philosophy and
other academic disciplines has been multiple in dimension and kind.
Any treatment
of such impact is really a study of Evolutionisin and goes beyond the scope of
this paper.
SPECIAL THEORY OF EVOLUTION
A briefer examination of the Special Theory of Evolution is possible.
Many reports
of experimental studies in "evolution" are available. For example in
1955, W. H. Dowdeswell published a book on The Mechanism of Evolution, with the
first Harper Torchbook edition appearing in 1960. That title should have been
about mechanisms of micro-evolution, but more on this concept later. In 1960, W. S. Boyle published "Studies in Experimental Evolution" as part of
the Faculty Honor Lecture Series of Utah State University.
And in 1966, Prof. E. B. Ford of Oxford University spoke at Michigan State University on the subject, "The Experimental Study of Evolution".
Are these studies designed to test predictions of the General Theory of Evolution or Special Theory of Evolution? Studies with violets, bacteria, butterflies, or moths can be shown to involve organisms which always remain fully recognizable as violets, bacteria, butterflies, or moths. These studies are not experimental studies within the frame of reference of the General Theory of Evolution, which requires change of one form into another form of organism.
All the experimental studies known have been tests of predictions or consequences of the Special Theory of Evolution, which stated that many living animals (or plants) can be observed, over the course of time, to undergo changes so that new varieties are formed. This is the type of "evolution" which can be demonstrated in the laboratory or in the field. Does "evolution" here mean "genetic variation"?
It would be quite correct to interpret tests of the Special Theory of Evolution as tests of micro-evolution. But in no way have laboratory scientists come close to demonstrating the type of change in living forms required by the General Theory of Evolution. It is true that proponents of the General Theory of Evolution have the hope, the desire, and the faith that the mechanism or mechanisms of micro-evolution provide understanding of the mode of surmised general evolutionary change. (See The Process of Evolution by Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm. New York: McGrawHill Book Company, 1963, pp. 308 through 312.)
But tests of the Special Theory of Evolution, or micro-evolution, are no more than studies of genetic variation. This was clearly admitted by Prof. Ford during his presentation. All of his data related to variations, primarily genetic, of organisms such as butterflies and moths, which he and his colleagues had studied over the past 40 years. At no time did Prof. Ford, or do any other published reports of so-called studies of experimental evolution, show any change of one animal form into another animal form, or one plant form into another plant form.
EQUIVOCATION OF TERMS REJECTED
The laboratory experimenter, or the field investigator for that matter, only studies genetic variation within limits. In other words, empirical scientists produce tests of predictions and consequences of the Special Theory of Evolution, or micro-evolution, and no more. In point of fact, unless someone forces an equivocation of the term "evolution" with "genetic variation", such experimentation is simply irrelevant (non sequitur) to the discussion of any rise of new forms of life out of old forms.
Should the Special Theory of Evolution be required or optional in a science course? The Special Theory of Evolution amounts to another expression of the concept of genetic variation, or micro-evolution. Since studies of genetic variation are excellent examples of the core of scientific activity, that is, controlled experimental tests of repeatability and predictability, then such studies should definitely be required as part of a science course.
The net effect of this brief attention to the Special Theory of Evolution has been a lesson in semantics. If by "evolution" One means to commit an with "genetic variation", then such a ing about discovery of observable and facts obtained through trustworthy me excellent scientific activity. But equivoca does not speak well for rigorous use of should be avoided. Thus I support studies variation in science courses for that purpose studies of genetic variation as excellent scientific activity. Such studies should be of reference to the General Theory of E thermore, there is absolutely no need for the Special Theory of Evolution and/or tion since to all intents and purposes involved are essentially the same as those studies of genetic variation.
PROPRIETY OF CRITICISMS OF EVOLUTION
Critics of theories of evolution have no the Special Theory of Evolution as such, or evolution, when one actually means genetic The fact of genetic variation, and the fact of animal and plant forms within limits is readily admitted. The problem is that critics of theories of evolution are puzzled as to why some scientists use the term "evolution when "genetic be used without equivocation, with greator rigor of meaning, and with actual physical referents.
Debate and criticism of organic evolution is focused upon the General Theory of Evolution. There is also much serious criticism of seemingly unrestrained enthusiastic extensions of the general the general theory to other disciplines, far removed from the field of biology.
It is proper in scientific endeavor to criicize theory, and empirical work as well. Criticism is the very essence of the scientific attitude. Most scientists will readily admit that theories and ideas of scientists are always open to re-evaluation. Doubt is always needed for the so-called self-correctiveness of scientific activity.
Ideas about the General Theory of Evolution...actually are speculations derived from the philosophy of naturalism extended far beyond the limits of testability, repeatability, and predictability
Propriety of criticisms of theories of been brought out by many scholars, among whom is W. R. Thompson, Fellow of the Royal Society of England, and former director of the Biological Institute of Control in Ottawa, Canada, who wrote:
As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw attention of the non-scientific to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public
by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science. (Introduction to The Origin of Species. New York: Dutton Everyman's Library Edition, No. 811, 1956, p. xxii)
AlsoW. R. Thompson has written in a recently republished book, Science and Common Sense (Magi Books, Inc., Albany, N. Y., 1965):But as has been shown in previous chapters, the development of Science, as an autonomous discipline, seems to entail the rigorous elimination of philosophical notions (Yet) evolutionary speculation is (full)
of philosophical principles and suppositions. The concept of organic evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard if as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation. (p. 229)
And Errol Harris makes clear in his 1965 book on The Foundations of Metaphysics
in Science, that organic evolution is based upon the "argument
from improbability".
He uses eight pages to relate many examples of "coherently
integrated systems
that the evolutionary process must produce", which are in
apparent contradition
to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Criticisms of the General Theory of Evolution are set in focus by
attention given
to "scientism" by Isidor Chein in his April, 1966 article in American
Psychologist, Scientism can be defined as that belief that the only knowledge
worthy of being called such is obtained through the scientific method. This is
of course a prejudice in favor of naturalism, a particular form of philosophy.
Chein wrote:
The most extreme expressions of scientism involve doctrinaire views on the nature of science and on proper rules of scientific conduct and expression. By strict application of some of these rules, a considerable array of sciences, from anatomy to zoology, would be ruled out of the domain of science because they are, in the main not experimental, not quantitative, not concerned with prediction, and/or not hypothetico-deductive in structure. (p. 337) (Emphasis added)
Chein continued, "A work like Darwin's Origin of
Species would similarly not be expected to make the grade since it promulgates
as a theory presuppositions that can only be applied on a post hoc basis and do
not serve the ends of prediction."
In the face of this analysis, what empirical scientist can seriously consider
"origins" of life as an empirical scientist? What student
of so-called
historical geology can give serious thought to supposed empirical
study of Paleozoic
or Mesozoic divisions of accepted geological time scale? Certainly discussions
of "origins" and so-called historical geology are to be
considered qualitative,
speculative imaginations of philosophically oriented men, rather than the type
of scientific research work in which we have rightly become
accustomed to putting
our trust.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Criticisms have been formulated against theories of evolution in terms of the
question asked by many Christian parents, "Should evolution be
required or
optional in a science course?" I conclude that the General
Theory of Evolution
should not be required in a science course because it is unrelated to
any direct
study of scientific activity. Of course, the General Theory of Evolution might
be used as a prime example of philosophial speculation by believers
in naturalism.
The Special Theory of Evolution should be required in a science
course. However,
expression of the Special Theory of Evolution and discussion around
it might just
as well be in terms of studies of genetic variation, which is all that proper
scientific activity can demonstrate in the lahoraory or in the field.
Full use of the methods of experimental science is not applicable to
the General
Theory of Evolution at all. The fossil record does not support the
claims of proponents
of the General Theory of Evolution, There are many scientists today who attest
to this condition, and many who have written on this point over the
decades since
1859 when Darwin's book first appeared. Parents are quite properly asking, "Why
haven't my children heard of and read these critics in their
elementary, secondary,
or college level studies?"
Experimental studies that are reported, and those that can be
conducted properly
within the frame of reference of empirical science, support only the
Special Theory
of Evolution, microevolution or genetic variation. There is
absolutely no experimental
evidence for any change of one animal form into another animal form, or for any
change of one plant form into another plant form, as demanded according to the
General Theory of Evolution.
The only evidence of change which can be classed properly as the
result of scientific
method is the evidence of genetic variation within limits of kinds of forms of
animals, or within limits of kinds or forms of plants. A dog-kind, horse-kind,
and man-kind exist; a moss-kind, fern-kind, and flowering plant-kind
exist. There
is absolutely no empirical, repeatable, reproducible, predictable evidence from
breeding experiments for connections between these kinds, and no
evidence in the
prime historical source, the fossil record, for any actual connection
in sequence
of these kinds.
No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very
probably because
no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely,
transitions between
animal kinds and/or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred. This
conclusion may be expressed another way: The data of the so-called
fossil "series",
gene combinations and recombinations, hybridization, mutation,
migration, isolation,
distribution, and selection may be interpreted from the viewpoint of either the
philosophy of gradual evolutionism or the philosophy of instantaneous
creationism.
Specific choice depends upon presuppositions of the interpreter.
The acceptance of interpretation of empirical data within the frame
of reference
of instantaneous creationism may be made as the least complex, and as
one unemcumbered
with the serious consequences of acceptance of the philosophy of evolutionism
as a basis for interpretation. Ideas about the General Theory of
Evolution, about
the past, such as ideas about the "origin" of life, are not
based upon
empirical science, but actually are speculations derived from the philosophy of
naturalism extended far beyond the limits of testability,
repeatability, and predictability.