A severe case of writers block has prevented me from repairing the deficiencies
in my "Burden of Proof" essay. I am, therefore, going to post a little out
of the promised order.
Part I of my pamphlet:
"Evolution All Around Us"
Summary of the Argument:
Evolutionists often argue that evolution is true because we can see
the process of evolution occurring every day. Selection processes (natural
and artificial) can be seen to cause:
-Bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics.
-The body color of moth populations in regions with pollution
problems to go from light ot dark.
-The size and shape of the beaks of finches to change on islands
where given populations are isolated from a parent population.
-The average number of bristles to change in a fruit fly population.
-The predominance of traits favorable to man in domesticated animals.
- and many others
Problems:
While it is certainly true that selective processes can cause the
average characteristics within a population to change, this is not evidence
for evolution. This is because evolution of this kind is a mathematically
necessity when four conditions are met (Ridley, 1993):
1. Creatures reproduce.
2. Creatures inherit physical characteristics.
3. Physical Characteristics vary from parent to offspring.
4. Physical characteristics effect the survivability of creature.
In other words, this evidence for evolution MUST be present unless God did
one of 8 things:
1. Change laws of mathematics (2+2 = 5?).
2. Make creatures that cannot reproduce.
3. Make physical characteristics non-hereditary.
4. Make children identical to parents.
5. Eliminate death.
6. Make the process of dying unrelated to physical characteristics.
7. Eliminate mutation.
8. Not allow mutation to effect hereditary characteristics.
What does this mean in terms of evidence for evolution? Remember
that when scientists compare two theories, they compare differences
between the predictions of the theories. Einstein, for example, proposed
a theory of gravitation he thought better than that of Newton. Einstein's
theory made a number of predictions, among them:
1. Apples would fall to the ground with an acceleration G when
dropped under normal lab conditions.
2. Space is curved due to gravitation.
Newton's theory, on the other hand, predicted (among other things):
1. Apples would fall to the ground with an acceleration G when
dropped under normal lab conditions.
2. Space is not effected by gravity.
When Einstein discussed possible tests of his theory he did not include
dropping an apple under laboratory conditions. Why not? Because this
test wouldn't have meant anything. Both theories predicted that apples
would fall to the floor under laboratory conditions so there is no way
this experiment could have said anything about which theory best fit the
facts. Instead, Einstein proposed experiments that might be able to tell
whether or not space was curved due to the influence of gravity. Such an
experiment was performed in 1919 and Einstein's theory was validated.
Conclusion:
"Micro" evolutionary processes result in small changes that usually
disappear when the environemntal conditions driving the evolution change.
Furthermore, evidence of "micro" evolution does not contradict a theory of
intelligent design unless the designer is supposed to have created a world
that did not meet the four criteria listed above; it is mathematically
impossible for "micro" evolutionary evidence not to be there otherwise.
Given these two considerations, the evidence of evolution occurring all
around us is not strong, much less conclusive, evidence for the proposition
that all life descended from a common ancestor by natural processes.
In Christ,
robert van de water
associate researcher
UCLA