Some words have been said lately on the subject of macroevolution. This
is of particular interest to me as I live in Montgomery, Alabama in
which exists heated debate over microevolution, macroevolution, and the
teaching of science in the public schools.
As a creationist (OEC), I must express my dismay at the importance other
creationists are placing on macroevolution. It seems to me that the
whole thrust of the debate is completely off track. We are at risk of
being marginalized again as has happened before due to our failure to
cast the debate properly. We could not accept a heliocentric solar
system, so we obstinately clung to geocentrism despite all empirical
data to the contrary. We saw circles as more perfect than elispses and
could not attribute the latter to the work of a perfect Designer. We
held a young earth to be more agreeable to our interpretation of
scripture thus rejecting the true age of the universe and the earth.
Now, we cannot imagine the Designer using any but supernatural
mechanisms in creation--despite evidence that He used such mechanisms at
other times--so we reject all arguments that allow for natural
mechanisms.
This stand against macroevolution is only the latest of a long history
of misdirected arguments. Actually, the issue of whether macroevolution
has occurred or not is wholly irrelevant to the creationist position.
On the scientific side, the issue is not whether speciation has occurred
by natural mechanisms (macroevolution); the issue is whether natural
mechanisms account for everything from the Big Bang to the present. On
the metaphysical side, the issue is not whether the Gardener cultivated
His field; the issue is just how much intelligent manipulation of nature
was required to achieve His purposes.
I would prefer to formulate the debate differently. Instead of
microevolution and macroevolution, I prefer to think in terms of the two
theories of evolution: The Special Theory of Evolution and The General
Theory of Evolution.
The Special Theory of Evolution is expressed by two propositions:
1. Changes occur to the genomes of species.
2. These changes are caused and preserved by natural mechanisms.
The proof of the Special Theory is in the fact that such changes have
been observed to occur in nature and that their causes can be accounted
for. Moreover, "micro" changes can theoretically--some say
certainly--accumulate into "macro" changes--even to the formation of new
species.
The General Theory of Evolution is also expressed by two propositions:
1. Natural mechanisms account for all changes to the genomes of all
species.
2. All biodiversity on earth is attributable to these natural
mechanisms.
The proof of the General Theory would be established by thorough models
of physiological and biochemical evolution derived from a complete
fossil record and extensive analysis of the preserved DNA of ancient
species. Moreover, all extra-natural activity must be completely and
impartially discounted.
The Special Theory stands as thoroughly proved as Einsteins Laws of
Relativity. One might as well argue for a flat earth as to try to
refute the Special Theory of Evolution. The General Theory, however, is
not only unproved but, even if true, is probably impossible to prove.
And, this is exactly where the religious faith of the materialistic
evolutionist comes in. The General Theory is ASSUMED to be true because
only naturalistic arguments and conclusions are allowed. The General
Theory has become the Great Naturalistic World View. It is as Carl
Sagan expressed at the beginning of his Cosmos television series:
"The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be."
This is not a scientific statement at all except insofar as Science has
been erected as the supreme discoverer and arbiter of Truth conscerning
Cosmic and Human origins. Of course, this all depends on definitions.
If by Cosmos, Sagan meant everything there is, then he was simply being
redundant: Everything is all there is. This is true but hardly worth
saying. If, however, by Cosmos he means the natural universe and that
it is all there is, then an entirely different situation arises: He is
asserting the unknowable as if it were a basic theorem of Science.
Is not this exactly how Darwinian Materialism has been transformed.
When the mathematicians and astrophysicists pulled down the eternal
universe of Darwin's time and replaced it with an impossibly young one,
did Darwin's theory die? No. It was transmogrified from theory to
axiom--how lucky we were the dice roll came up right on the first
throw. All things considered, it was the first throw.
Herein lies the arrogance of the materialist view. When the God of the
Jewish Creation Myth is put forward as the Designer, the argument is
excluded as "unscientific" because only naturalistic propositions and
conclusions are permitted. But once that God has been pushed aside, all
manner of metaphysical statements are made by the scientists--statements
that are no more scientific than, "B'raysheet bara Elohim HaSh'myim
HaEretz". Carl Sagan's religion can be openly taught and embraced in
public classrooms, but mine cannot. Perhaps that is as it should be.
We wouldn't want a captive audience to be taught something that might
not be true, would we?
Russ
Russell T. Cannon
rcannon@usa.net