A RESPONSE TO ED BRAYTON ON HIS DEFENSE OF EVOLUTION:
CREATIONISM IS THE BEST EXPLANATION OF THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
1. THE BRAYTON SCHEMA
To begin with I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to provide a reasonable defense of creationism over its rival, evolution. Many non-Christians on one hand simply take for granted that science vindicates the evolutionary hypothesis and that religion encroaches upon the world view of "facts" with its plethora of "empty" claims. On the other hand too many Christians either affirm that 1) Christianity does not need to be defended, or 2) one is simply too stupid to believe something other than the Christian world view. But the Apostle Paul admonishes the believer to "test everything; hold fast to what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21, RSV) and "no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming" (Ephesians 4:14). In this essay I will be defending two major contentions. First, there is no good evidence to suggest that the evolution hypothesis is the best explanation of the relevant facts. Secondly, there is good evidence to suggest that creationism is the best explanation.
I. NO GOOD EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE EVOLUTION HYPOTHESIS
As I read Ed Brayton's defense of evolution, I perceive a gross misunderstanding of the evolution/creationism debate. In order to afford Brayton a proper response to the allegations and arguments against creationism and the asseverations of evolution, I will begin with analyzing his essay on the veridical nature of evolution. Here is a basic summary of Brayton's essay:
THESIS: Does evolution or creationism better explain the appearance of
diversity of plant and animal life on Earth?
I. Creationism is the View that Affirms a Literal Genesis Record, a Simultaneous
Event for Life's Origin, and a Global Flood Confirmed by the Fossil Record.
A. Variations of this position exist.
B. This is not a debate over the existence of God/god.
II. Evolution (explicitly undefined)
A. The paleontological record favors evolutionary theory.
1. the fossil record bespeaks uniformity
a. "flood geology" does not account for fossils
b. there are inherent problems in the flood narrative
B. Creationists merely attempt to falsify evolution.
III. Objections to Evolution Answered
A. Evolution is not just a "theory" but also a fact.
B. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to earth since it is an
open system.
C. There are transitional forms
1. what would a transitional form look like?
2. archaeopteryx
3. the fossil record is incomplete
IV. The Evolution/Creationism Debate Should Focus on the Fossil Record
A. The issue of whether or not there was a "first cause" is irrelevant.
If we are going to decide which explanation is preferable, then I agree with Brayton that each position must not simply falsify its opposition (cf. Salmon 1984, p. 2). There may be other arguments that may succeed despite the ones given in support of evolution. Therefore, anyone who claims to know something about the world must responsibly contrive a case of his/her own. In reading Brayton's essay, I perceive the following arguments of which I provide sufficient responses.
A. What Is Creationism?
Brayton's work is riddled with claims and various understandings of creationism. Indeed, I think he has convoluted the term creationism with various auxiliaries on the matter. For example, Brayton defines creationism in a narrow sense by alluding to the particular auxiliary hypotheses advocated by special creationism (special creationism is the view that all living things were created within six literal 24-hour days whose geological column is best explained through the great universal flood of Noah). He states that the definition of creationism is, "the notion that the creation account(s) in the biblical book of Genesis are true in a literal sense, that all life was created in a more or less simultaneous event by God and that the fossil record confirms that most of them died in the global flood that Noah and his family escaped, as the bible also records." Phillip E. Johnson, author of Darwin On Trial and the forthcoming book Defeating Darwinism - By Opening Minds, observes, "It is a major theme of Darwinism propaganda that the only persons who have any doubts about Darwinism are young-earth creationists of this sort, who are always portrayed as rejecting the clear and convincing evidence of science to preserve a religious prejudice" (Johnson, p. 22). But those who have seriously studied the evidence for evolution have no such attitude of denigration toward creationist colleagues.
The proper view of creationism is best defined more broadly as the view that one "believes in the existence of a creator who brought about the world and its living inhabitants for a purpose" (Johnson, ibid.). Johnson further notes that "whether the process of creation took a single week or billions of years is relatively unimportant from a philosophical or theological standpoint" (ibid.). Dr. J. P. Moreland, Christian philosopher of science, also states that "some evangelical scholars do not believe the Bible teaches that the flood of Noah was a universal flood, but rather a flood that extended far enough to include the human race. . . . The nature of the flood is a secondary issue . . . Second, the age of the earth or universe is not a central issue in the debate between creation and evolution either" (Moreland, pp. 208-9; cf. Ramm, pp. 156-69 and Howe, pp. 23-37). So Brayton's understanding about creationism is greatly biased and narrowly defined and is by far incorrect that "fundamentalism is absolute and uncompromising."
What can we say about theism in the evolution/creation debate? When he states that "this is not a debate about the existence of god (in general) or the existence of God (specifically, the biblical deity). It is only a debate over the biological processes by which the vast diversity of species that we see around us came to be here," I have to stipulate this concern. I sympathize with Brayton that one ought not stray from the issue at hand, but I simply find no support for jettisoning the theistic hypothesis. Indeed, it is very crucial to the background information in order to advance a plausible explanation to be inferred from it. For example, it may be that the debate over whether or not human beings possess an immaterial soul is valueless in understanding how alcohol causes brain deterioration, but it would be unwise to suggest that the mind-body problem has nothing to do with subsequent explanations about human death and a possible afterlife. So, he must not just avoid theism, but he must also provide a reason to surmise its inapplicability here. If one accepts the existence of a soul or spirit, then it provides already established background information regarding the afterlife. While theism in general does not guarantee either evolution or creationism, and if we take God's existence as given, then we have background information in the evolution/creation matrices. This makes theism very applicable.
B. What is Evolution?
While creationists cannot be categorized as a monolith, evolutionists can be said not to be catalogued under a unifying banner as well. Instead of attacking various areas of evolutionary theory, I will only be concerned with Brayton's particular defense. So, we must have some idea of what we are talking about when approaching either a defense or an attack of evolutionary theory. Since this debate concerns the fundamental origin of our universe and subsequent human life, evolution must conform to some understanding about cosmogony and abiogenesis (life from non-life). It seems that evolution should be characterized as the hypothesis that the universe, being a closed system of material causes, originated from of the initial singularity of the Big Bang. From this came the gradual conversion of energy to matter and eventually to living organisms. These living organisms, through crystallization and RNA convergence, came into being forming living single-cells. Consequently, adaptive radiation and random genetic mutation caused living cells to mutate into more complex fauna. Of course this entire evolutionary process ensued over 15 - 20 billion years since the universe's beginning. One may rightly classify this position as Darwinism.
I must caution here that when we say evolution what we mean is specifically macroevolution. This is not to be confused with microevolution which is the hypothesis similar to that of natural selection or the genetic mutations and perturbations that cause variability within a species. Thus the evolutionary theory many employ is best stipulated as macroevolution which is allegedly based on microevolutionary occurrences.
Ed Brayton seems to misdefine evolution at the beginning of his essay, giving the reader the impression that evolution and creation are simply explanations of "the appearance of the diversity of plant and animal life on Earth." But he has posed a thesis that neither creationism nor evolution answer. Instead, the answer to this thesis would most properly be natural selection. In the conclusion of his essay he states that evolution is "an explanation for the fossil record" as though the debate were limited to explanations about the fossil record. This is not an answer to the original thesis. In the middle of his essay when he discusses the essence of the debate Brayton changes the thesis again and states, "It is only a debate over the biological processes by which the vast diversity of species that we see around us came to be here. It is my position that this is the result of hundreds of millions of years of cumulative natural selection and speciation." Which of the three theses is he ultimately defending? For me it seems that this last allegation that "cumulative natural selection and speciation" gradually incurred the "vast diversity of species" is the central issue for Brayton. While I would be inclined to agree with him about natural selection being an auxiliary in the evolution hypothesis, I would immediately sever the issue of it being "the result of hundreds of millions of years" (a rather gross underestimation of modern chronological pronouncements) since time is not paramount to the issue. Again, he fails to affirm evolution even when he prepares to defend it! Creationists generally accept natural selection as the explanation for diversities in species. But if he means that natural selection caused some species to mutate into other species then he has not made this claim poignantly.
Concerning the issue of time, Dr. John D. Barrow, professor of astronomy at the University of Sussex, and Dr. Frank J. Tipler, professor of mathematical physics at Tulane University, explain why the evolutionary time-line is far too recent! Indeed, they state that the probability of human evolution by time t can be calculated as being so improbable that G-type stars, like the sun, will exit the main sequence prior to the evolution of the human genome. Their formula is based on Brandon Carter's Weak Anthropic Principle formula reprinted here:
(Barrow & Tipler, pp. 558-9)
Here, "ai >> t0 is the timescale for the occurrence of the ith improbable step" (ibid., p. 559). Secondly, the issue of evolutionary chronology is also problematic from a geological perspective. The oldest rocks on earth date around 3.5 x 10^9 or 3.5 billion years ago (Isaacs, p. 8), but life in general is said to be present as early as 3.81 billion years ago. This means that life had only 290 million years to obtain. This is a mere blip on the geological timescale. While more difficulties with evolutionary timescales could be advanced, it is only my intent to demonstrate that the issue of temporal duration can be problematic for evolutionist and creationist alike.
C. Inferring to the Best Explanation and Validating Hypotheses
We are now led to criteria by which to examine the veridical natures of evolution and creationism. Here, I will list the most widely accepted set of initial conditions that must be present to such a degree that any rival to the theory under investigation would be inappropriate. Of course since no one can demonstrate the truth of a hypothesis with mathematical certainty, we must engage in what scientists and historians call an inference to the best explanation. This means that based on certain criteria we can postulate the best explanation for the facts that we now know. Dr. Carl G. Hempel has provided us with the most common criteria in validating scientific hypotheses.
1) A hypothesis may receive explanatory power and scope through favorable test findings. If a hypothesis is postulated as accepted scientific knowledge, then any subsequent findings explained best by the hypothesis are said to confirm it. Also, the hypothesis is said to have explanatory scope when it explains more relative data better than rival hypotheses.
2) A hypothesis may be confirmed with great probability if it possesses further explanatory scope to such an extent that new observed phenomena confirm it. If we observe certain phenomena such as objects falling toward the earth, then we can consider the hypothesis that gravity exists in some proportion to mass as confirmed. But the theory is granted further confirmation when "new" implications are explained by it.
3) Apart from empirical evidence, a hypothesis has theoretical support if the background information confirms it. Given our background information about the Special Theory of Relativity, the hypothesis that should a pair of twins separate, one remaining on earth and the other traveling near the speed of light in a rocket ship, the remaining twin would appear more advanced in years. But there are no empirical observations or implications validating this data but only assumptions about Minkowsky geometry. Nonetheless, there is no reason to discredit the "twin paradox" in the absence of such physical observations.
4) The best hypothesis will be the simplest one. If a group of facts is explained by a hypothesis that does not go too far beyond the background information (or is the least ad hoc), then it is said to be the best theory available. Of course a new hypothesis will go to some extent beyond the background information (else it would not be a new hypothesis). It is only the degree to how far it goes. This is one reason why the Copernican cosmology receives better support over its antecedent rival (the Ptolemaic cosmology) despite "wild" assertions about stars being vastly distant from earth.
5) The best hypothesis will be the most probable. Although it is difficult to assess probabilities about scientific theories (there are at least three definitions of probability), the probability of a hypothesis against the background information will prove to be the best explanation of the facts (Hempel, pp. 33-46).
D. Arguments Against Creationism
Since Ed Brayton has neglected to attack creationism and central arguments advanced by creationists, then there will be no need to discuss straw men at this point. Although he has advanced a counterattack to two claims about evolution by creationists, he is silent about creationism's main thesis in this section of his essay. It is possible to respond to the numerous attacks provided by evolutionists in general in support of the thesis that creationism fails to explain the origin of human beings, but so far Brayton has given us no reason to think that creationism is not true.
E. Arguments Supporting Evolution
What about Brayton's defense? Does he successfully provide even one single line of evidence in support of human evolution? The following assessment suggests that he does not.
1. The paleontological record. Brayton argues that modern discoveries of the fossil record provide ample support for evolutionary theory. However, he provides absolutely no evidence of this claim despite his later gratuitous defense of archaeopteryx. But this is never cited as evidence for evolution, only as a polemic against creationist arguments. There simply are no examples of fossil evidences supporting evolution given by Brayton. As such I need not argue against claims I do not need to account for or explain. Secondly, he mentions the superiority of uniformitarianism over special creationist claims about catastrophism. As noted before, arguments against a "young earth" are irrelevant to the issue. That is why flood geology and the question of uniformity that he mentions are non-substantial. Worse than that, flood geologists are not in agreement as to the extent of the flood. It may have been a universal flood (encompassing the entire world) or a local flood (encompassing only the populated areas of that time). Nonetheless, its actual occurrence at all is not a matter for creationists to defend given the essential issues up for debate.
2. Creationist falsifications. Brayton's second argument in support of evolution is really not supportive at all. Rather, he seems to change the subject at this point by leading into the section on discrediting creationist arguments. Again, the reader is left wondering what Brayton's intentions are about the evolution/creation debate with waters he refuses to swim in.
Therefore, he has not given us any arguments in support of evolution.
F. Objections to Evolution
Brayton concludes his essay by answering frequently addressed claims made by creationists. Indeed, many evolutionists feel vindicated when providing likely alternatives to these claims. Brayton is no exception. Instead, there is ample evidence to suggest that these objections still hold despite his rough critiques of them.
1. Evolution is "just a theory." Brayton surmises that creationists attempt to discredit evolution on the basis that it is a certain breed of "theory" implying an absence of evidence. To my knowledge, scientific creationists do not take this route, and his failure to produce citations from reputable creationists makes this subsection only speculative. Apparently Brayton does not heed his own advice when he says "Quotations should include ORIGINAL source citation" where only hearsay is the only authority being paraded here. For our purposes here, I concur with Brayton on his discussions on "theory" and "fact" without the threat of any objection of mine being compromised.
2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics. Although it may be that non-evolutionists oversimplify the Second Law, it does not imply that the Second Law is a bad argument. Brayton notes the primary evolutionary answer to proponents of the Second Law argument stating that "the law applies to closed systems only. The earth is not, of course, a closed system. The sun imparts enormous amounts of energy to the earth, which provides fuel for organic growth and, hence, evolution." But how can he criticize "oversimplification" when he goes from solar energy to human evolution? It is bewildering and question-begging at its best.
To clarify "oversimplified" definitions, the Second Law is the apparent accumulation of entropy (the decrease of energy and information in a closed system) where a closed system moves irreversibly to a state of energy loss (e.g. energy never to be recycled). For example, if there was a warm cup of coffee sitting in a room and one could ascertain the relevant information, one could conclude when it was made and how long it was there. Now, the objection concerning the earth being an open system only disconfirms claims that the earth is a closed system (believing that the earth is a closed system is something that nobody believes). But Brayton has overlooked the essential feature of the Second Law argument. No one is suggesting that the mere absence of energy in a closed system makes evolution impossible; Rather, it is the energy conversion mechanism and the biological blueprint that preclude abiogenesis. It would be suggesting that a bomb dropped (energy) on a junkyard (an open system) would form a perfectly running vehicle. The remaining factors (an energy conversion mechanism and a blueprint) are missing from the equation. But those two factors only exist in preexisting life forms making the evolutionary explanation about the Second Law a catch-22. Therefore, the Second Law argument succeeds unless Brayton can provide us with these two missing factors in preexisting raw energy.
3. There are no transitional forms. The most ardent objection to evolution given by creationists is the claim that there are no transitional fossil forms bridging the gap between two different species. Brayton, on the other hand, maintains that "transitional forms are the single most important piece [sic] of evidence for evolution." So it seems that if Brayton presents us with the strongest evidence for transitional forms and these forms are discredited, then it follows that the single most important pieces of evidence are dismissed. There are three main lines of evidence Brayton advances in support of this critique.
First, he questions what a transitional form would appear like in the fossil record. He cites paleontologist Pascal Tassy (or is it Lassy? Given the sudden name change, for the sake of reference, I will use "Tassy") who states that "the search for half and half species is not only doomed to failure, but also completely alien to what we know about evolution." So when creationists posit the non-existence of partially formed traits in a fossil, Brayton (through Tassy) retorts that such fossil transitions do not (would not?) occur in this fashion. Rather, Tassy says, "it is always one characteristic or one type of characteristic that evolves at a given rhythm, rather than the entire morphology . . . only a single very precise characteristic is involved." But this is an ad hoc, not to say a laughable, scenario. It appears that in the admitted absence of "half and half species," there must be a tautological redefinition of what one would find given the absence. It is like postulating the empirical data a theory would explain and then when the data does not confirm the hypothesis, the data are soon quickly redefined. Further, Tassy's account only describes minor, "adaptive response[s] of a population to environmental changes" such as the "dental apparatus, the locomotor system, or perhaps vision." But where one could grant the spontaneous mutation of something as minor as skin color, there could not be the spontaneous mutation of arms to wings. But then Tassy summarizes with, "As subsequent speciation takes place, these transformations are transmitted, become modified in turn, or may even remain unchanged." Tassy fails to make the dichotomy between micro- and macroevolution. So while microevolution is best emphasized by Tassy, he soon begs the question by claiming to have described macroevolution. This is the very issue in question! Secondly, it would be absurd to suggest that no intermediate forms would exist between grand mutations between, say, the mouse and the bird. On this basis, commonly referred to as punctuated equilibrium, one would have no reasons based on the facts to prefer evolution over creation. The data would show either a rapid alteration between species or it would simply prove that the species are unconnected and distinct. Since the latter is what is observed, then creationism is the best explanation of the facts.
Second, Brayton, almost apologetically, provides excuses as to why the fossil record is lacking(like many evolutionists). But he had just finished explaining that the fossil record is "the single most important piece of evidence for evolution." Why make excuses for evidence that possesses such great explanatory power? This just makes the evolutionary hypothesis even more incredible. How could fossil evidence be elevated to the point of providing unquestionable proof for evolution and also be "clear that we are extraordinarily lucky to have as many examples of transitional fossils as we do"? Lucky? I would think so. And so Brayton's admission of a fragmented fossil record betrays fossil evidence as the "single most important piece of evidence." Otherwise he is left to deal with his hasty generalization.
Finally, is the case against archaeopteryx being an intermediate species a formidable one? I think the creationist objections are successful. The flaw for Tassy in his explanation of the fossil characteristics of archaeopteryx is one of assumption and interpretation. There is no reason to think that one trait on archaeopteryx was temporally ordered prior or subsequent to another trait. Indeed, there is no reason not to think of archaeopteryx as an avian dinosaur who, while enjoying its own separate coexisting characteristics, has long since become extinct. In fact, one recent discovery has provided evidence for the conclusion that birds already had a distinct nature from that of the reptilian species. The discovery of two protoavis birds around Post, Texas by Sankar Chatterjee and his colleagues proved that birds, these in particular, existed about 75 million years prior to archaeopteryx (Weisburd, p. 103 and Beardsley, 322:677). This places the age of protoavis at 225 million years around the same time as the dinosaurs' first appearance! What place, then, for archaeopteryx? This vindicates the creationist critique of alleged transitional forms.
In summary, we have seen some clarifications of definitions concerning the evolution/creationism debate. Also, we have seen some misconceptions, contradictions, and misinterpretations advanced in Brayton's essay. We have not seen any good evidence for evolution or any evidence whatsoever against creationism. Therefore, it is most plausible to infer that evolution is not the best explanation of the evidence.
II. SOME GOOD REASONS TO SUPPORT THE CREATION HYPOTHESIS
A. The Anthropic Principle and Creationism
Remembering our definition of creationism, it seems that we need only posit an explanation for the careful design and structure of our universe toward human beings. If such a view is vindicated, then it is clear that some divine cause is responsible for human existence. Since Brayton is not concerned with the existence of God (and even willing to concede to it for this debate), then I will take the existence of God as probable. I will show that in the creationist thesis (e.g. "God created the heavens and the earth") one need only have one additional supposition: God exists. But if one is already a theist then this need not even be an additional supposition at all. Nonetheless, each premise in the argument for creationism will be given support.
p1: If the universe exhibits anthropocentric design, then the universe was
created by God.
p2: The universe exhibits anthropocentric design.
C: Therefore, the universe was created by God.
At the outset it must be noted that the connection between anthropocentric design, commonly referred to as the anthropic principle, and God is only part of the creationist equation. That is, one can maintain evolutionary theory and still adhere to the anthropic principle (indeed, this is the position of Barrow, Tipler, and John Wheeler). But the second part of the equation is whether or not evolution is the best conclusion for the anthropic principle. Instead, physicists and mathematicians like Barrow and Tipler have postulated the final anthropic principle which implies that human intelligences will eventually expand throughout the universe and gain every bit of knowable information making human beings "God" (Barrow and Tipler, p. 677). This, say Barrow and Tipler, is the Omega Point of human existence which loops the space-time manifold as the product of the divine-human creative act. So in one sense evolution is guided by divine providence, even if this divine being is defined as the finally deified human intelligences. Also, as noted before, the age of the universe is insufficient to account for the time necessary for the spontaneous evolution of the human genome. In any case, "God" becomes the best explanation for the anthropic principle. The connection between God and creationism will be explained in an evaluation of the 3-step argument above.
1) If the universe exhibits anthropocentric design, then the universe was created by God.
It is generally acknowledged that life-prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than life-permitting universes. It seems that if life could obtain in a universe where a certain delicate balance of initial conditions were not necessary, then the concept of a creator-designer of the universe would not be warranted. However, if it is true that these delicate conditions must (and do) exist, then it is more probable that an intelligent designer is responsible for bringing about a vastly improbable universe. The concept is simple: If I were playing a game of bridge and I was dealt a hand of 13 cards in the same suit, then I would suspect foul play from the outset. Perhaps the dealer wanted me to win so I would find favor with him and so fixed the deck to be dealt in my favor. So, in an improbable dealing of the cards I immediately suspect that someone was intentionally manipulating the hand I was dealt. The same can be applied to the construction of the universe. Thus if the antecedent of this premise is true, then the consequent necessarily follows.
2) The universe exhibits anthropocentric design.
While it is possible to write about 700 pages on the validity of the anthropic principle (as have Barrow and Tipler), I will reduce the issue to the initial conditions necessary for life on this planet. If the universe and the earth require such astronomically sensitive initial conditions for life, then the anthropic principle will be vindicated.
A) Initial conditions of the universe for possible life on earth.
1. The gravitational coupling constant. If our universe is to produce the heavy elements necessary for the formation of life, then the size of the stars is important in the production of the elements that are heavier than iron and beryllium. This gravitational constant, another name for the force of gravity in our universe, must be formed at the rate that they are. If the stars were to form more rapidly then they would not produce stars like our sun. But we need the sun-sized stars in order to avoid a rapidity of star-burning.
2. The strong nuclear force coupling constant. It is essential that the force holding together the particles in a nucleus of an atom be as it is otherwise those same heavy elements would be insufficient to sustain multi-proton nuclei bonding or a sufficient quantity of hydrogen. The stability of the elements necessary for life would be unstable.
3. The expansion rate. If the expansion rate of the universe were any less, then the universe would have collapsed on itself prior to the burning phase of any G-type stars. If the expansion rate were increased, then there would be insufficient condensation for galaxies and stars to form.
4. The total mass in the universe. If the total mass in the universe were decreased from the initial big bang, then helium would not be produced to form the heavy elements. If the total mass in the universe were increased, then an overabundance of deuterium would increase the star-burning rate making life on any planet impossible.
5. The entropy level of the universe. If the universe were more entropic, then stars would not form. If the universe were less entropic, then the galactic systems would trap radiation and would thwart the formation of individual stars.
6. The distances between stars (about 30 trillion miles). If the distances between stars were any smaller, then planetary orbits would be affected as to destabilize in temperature. If the distances between stars were any larger, then such rocky material (as terrestrial, earth-like planets) would never form. The vast distances of the stars are, therefore, necessary for our planet to obtain during the course of the universe's formation.
B) Initial conditions for the sun-earth-moon system are necessary for life on this planet.
1. The number of star companions. If there were more than one star companion, then the tides would warp planetary orbits. If there were no star at all, then there would be no heat necessary for life.
2. The distance of the parent star from the center of our galaxy. If the main star in our solar system were any closer to the center, then stellar density and radiation would be too massive. If the star were any further from the center, then the rocky material necessary for our planet would not form.
3. The thickness of the crust. If there were any deviation from the thickness of the crust, then severe tectonic activity would result and oxygen would be too abundant from the atmosphere to the crust.
4. Earth's diurnal rotation period. If earth rotated any slower, then there would be severe temperature differences. If the rotation period were any faster, then atmospheric wind velocities would be too severe and erratic.
5. The distance between the moon and earth. As Galileo had explained in his Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems, the moon is the cause of tidal and atmospheric effects. If the moon were any closer (or gravity were increased on the moon) then such conditions would be too severe to support life on earth. Likewise, if the distance of the moon were any smaller then earth's orbital obliquity would alter and cause severe climate changes.
6. The ozone level in the atmosphere. If the ozone level were to be any less, then UV radiation on the surface would be insufficient to stabilize necessary temperatures. If the ozone level were to be any more, then surface temperatures would be too high.
Many other parameters could be cited proving a delicately balanced set of variables necessary to support life on this planet. More parameters are being researched on an ongoing basis. For more information on the above sources and on other incredible parameters, see Ross, pp. 131-45.
3) Therefore, the universe was created by God.
If both premises are true in the argument, then the conclusion is inescapable. However, one may contest the logical step from "intelligent designer" to "God." But if it is true that an intelligence of some sort is responsible for the origin and creation of our universe, and since we are not concerned with the precise nature of the creator, it stands to reason that regardless of what intelligence is guiding the delicate conditions necessary for life creationism is the best possible solution given the two models proposed in this debate. So, in effect, what we mean by "God" is simply an agent capable of bringing about creation. Any speculation on the kind of God postulated would be to commit a red herring against the real issue at hand.
So, what has been demonstrated here is an unequivocal argument demanding that creationism be the only viable solution to the puzzle of abiogenesis. The anthropic principle gives, without a doubt, a powerful thrust in the scientific community toward the existence of an intelligent designer.
B. Creationism Best Fits Hempel's Criteria for Inferring to the Best Explanation
As we have so far seen, the evolutionary model, as given by Brayton, is disconfirmed by the available evidence. We have also seen that the anthropic principle demands the existence of a creator-designer who guides creation as to allow a delicate balance of conditions necessary to form and sustain life on this planet. In this final section, I will deal with evolution and creationism as hypotheses against the background information intimated in this essay.
Evolution
1) Evolution has poor explanatory power and scope. As we saw in the anthropic principle, the spontaneous arrival of delicately balanced initial conditions necessary for life make evolution as an explanation an enormous improbability. There really are no reasons to think that life came from nothing and by nothing in a universe that possesses astronomical odds against the formation and sustaining of life. Secondly, evolution cannot explain the mechanics of a macroevolving species. Too many scientists have quarreled over the duration, process, and origin of evolution for it to be considered a strong hypothesis. Do we have our origins from Mitochondrial Eve or do we have a multiple ancestry? Is punctuated equilibrium or gradualism true? Did life evolve on other planets in our galaxy or not? Did God use evolution to create living things given the improbability of spontaneous evolution? Are all gene mutations neutral or characteristically bad? Did the universe come into existence through a big bang or did it always exist? Evolutionists have no direct answers to these questions. There simply is no monolithic agreement among secular or theistic evolutionists on these subjects (cf. Gould, p. 120; Wiley, p. 270; Grene, p. 48; Harris, pp. 179-184. Numerous other scientists can be cited in their vigorous disagreements over the main claims of evolution). Thirdly, evolution does not explain other areas of discipline. For example, evolution cannot chronicle the origin of objective ethical decision-making and is, therefore, forced to collapse into a system of socio-biological relativism. Evolution cannot explain mankind's purpose and destiny in life nor can it give hope or comfort to human beings. Evolution cannot explain the apparent duality of mind and body. If there is a total cell replacement of my body every seven years, then just like a table is different should every piece be replaced, every person continues to be the same person despite the body's cycle. There just is some sort of mind separate from the body (see Guthrie, "Reductionism as Explanation and the Mind/Body Problem"). Therefore, evolution is a poor explanation.
2) Evolution does not explain other observed phenomena. The theory of evolution is confined to a mere suggestion of the evidence of natural selection since no other discipline in science finds any value in it as a historical explanation. For example, astrophysical theories about the origin of the universe directly contradict evolutionary theory. The hot big bang origin of the universe, if true, would cause evolutionary theory to surmise an explanation for abiogenesis - a system that astronomers unanimously posit odds against happening - in order to explain the appearance of life from non-life and the small amount of time necessary for evolution to obtain. As noted above, the accepted time of 15-20 billion years for the age of the universe is far too short for the spontaneous evolution of the human genome.
3) Evolution has little theoretical support. Basically, what we are asking here is precisely what would happen given the choice of either a life-permitting universe or a life-prohibiting universe. As noted above, a life-prohibiting universe is vastly more probable than a life-permitting universe. Evolution cannot explain on a theoretical level such a vast improbability (cf. Barrow and Tipler, p. 565).
4) Evolution is not the simplest explanation. Evolutionists have tried for years to make evolution the simplest explanation with its declaration that God is not necessary to explain human origins and that it best explains the similarities between species all in one encapsulated theory. However, evolution is certainly not that simple. In fact, dismissing the necessity of God's existence and tying in all other fields of study (i.e. paleontology, biology, archaeology, astronomy, etc. . .) have been evolution's downfall. As noted above, astronomy is not supportive of evolution in regard to the big bang. Secondly, the fossil record is admitted by Brayton to be too problematic for serious consideration. Finally, evolution must devise ad hoc assumptions in order to save the theory of evolution. Such ad hoc assumptions include a) continental drift, b) the non-existence of the human spirit, c) gross genetic mutations that occur beyond our experience, d) evolution in a relatively short time, e) life arising spontaneously from non-life, f) a cosmological matrix preferring a life-permitting universe over a life-prohibiting one, g) an explanation for our general awareness of moral values and rationality, e) a reversing of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, f) the presence of design in our universe, and g) the existence of the human spirit. Although evolutionists have battled over each of these factors, none have been able to come up with a convincing rebuttal.
5) Evolution is the least probable. The recurring theme in this essay is the notion that a life-prohibiting universe is vastly more probable than a life-permitting universe. But if the best explanation of the facts is one that will be the most probable, then what are we to do with such an improbability as we see in evolution. The only solution is to jettison evolution in favor of a better explanation.
Creationism
1) Creationism has strong explanatory power and scope. There are too many observed instances in nature and in the cosmos for design to be produced by a sophisticated and well-orchestrated accident of explosive matter. However, in creationism there is no hidden mystery. Such explanations of design and probability fit squarely within the creationist hypothesis. The delicately balanced set of initial conditions necessary for life to exist in this universe on this planet point unequivocally toward a Creator-God. Secondly, creationism explains the vast sources of information found in other fields of science. For example, astronomers understand that our universe of time and space had a beginning. But when something has a beginning we are left to wonder where it came from. Creation science is the best plausible solution to this question, something evolution is unable to answer.
2) Creationism is confirmed with great fecundity. Astronomy, a favorite example, makes more sense in the creationist hypothesis. Evolutionists have been committed to an infinitely old universe, but creationists have been comfortable in continuing affirmations about the universe's origin. Also, creationism fits as the best background for disciplines of mystery. Such instances of such disciplines include the existence of the soul, claims of miraculous healings, the current fascination with the power of healing in prayer, and the very resurrection of Jesus. Evolution has no information on such issues. Creationism provides the best explanatory basis for theistic interactivity in our world.
3) Creationism is the best explanation against the background information. Creationism does not need to go too far beyond the available background information. The only additional hypothesis one really needs for creationism is that God exists. But this need not be an additional hypothesis if one already believes in God. Therefore, it is more likely that God would create a universe and populate it for the purposes of communion and fellowship. Evolution remains devoid of any purpose or meaning for human individuals. Also, when one speculates about theoretical sciences, namely quantum mechanics, there are advantages to creationism. The wave-particles that exists in measurements gives us reason to think that some sort of observer is aware of the particle's wavefunction collapse. Evolution simply stipulates uncertainty as part of the theoretical world with no real answers for the collapse. But creationism, with its stipulation that God is at the center of creative activity, can collapse the wavefunction in any and all instances. So, if the Copenhagen interpretation is correct on this point, then creationists can find further confirmation of a Designer in the collapse of any and all wavefunctions.
4) Creationism is the simplest hypothesis. Evolution is committed to certain consequences. For example, evolutionists are forced to concede to a form of moral relativism, ad hoc beliefs in continental drift and missing fossil evidence, and a tenacious adherence to the probability of life in a vastly improbable life-permitting matrix. Creationism, on the other hand, has no problem reconciling most areas of science, psychology, ethics, and theology. Creationism has very little implications in its claim that God created the universe. With people who have a genuine awareness of moral principles and a general understanding that life does not "pop" into existence uncaused out of nothing, we have only one solution to the dilemma: creationism is the simplest and best hypothesis. Evolution simply cannot account for the variety of facts that exist without coming up with a sophisticated and improbable ad hoc assumption (a prime example is Charles Darwin who professed his theory of evolution in hopes that the fossil evidence would someday vindicate his theory. Evolutionists to this day still wait desperately for that evidence. Others have simply abandoned Darwinian/Gradualistic evolution altogether).
5) Creationism is the most probable explanation. The primary, recurring evidence against evolution has been the origin of the universe and the delicate balance of initial conditions needed to sustain life on planet earth. As we have seen, evolution is vastly more improbable. Creationism, with the background information of God's existence, makes it a great probability given the incredible figures on the spontaneous evolution of the human genome. Based on these probabilities alone, we are committed to some form of creationism. There is no open door for evolution to be true.
III. CONCLUSION AND EPILOGUE
In this essay, I have critiqued Ed Brayton's defense of evolutionary theory and given a better explanation for the facts: creationism. It is clear that Brayton misconstrues creationist arguments and fails to accurately define and defend evolutionary theory. I have provided a positive defense of creationism supported by various areas of science, primarily astronomy. If we are to take the evolution/creationism debate seriously, we must treat each hypothesis as viable. The moment we fail to acknowledge the possibility of one theory over another, we introduce bias and end up begging the question. I seriously hope that the reader of this debate considers what both authors are arguing. What I hope to convey is truth and encouragement to those who are seeking the meaning and purpose of their own lives. Ask yourself, "Could creationism really be true? Could there really be a God who created me and cares for me?" Seek the various web sites that explain Christianity and the love of God, and do not hesitate to visit my own web site on apologetic issues (http://members.aol.com/berean7/index.html). I think you will find a rich fulfillment to your tired, long search for truth. Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" (John 14:6; NIV). For Christians, the search ended in Jesus Christ who died for us and saved us from our wrongful proclivities. And remember that no decision is a decision.
END NOTES
Barrow, John D., and Tipler, Frank J., The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Walton Street, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986, 1996).
Beardsley, T., Nature 322:677 (1986).
Gould, Stephen J., Science 285:343 (1980).
Grene, Marjorie, Encounter (November 1959), p. 48.
Guthrie, Shandon, "Reductionism as Explanation and the Mind/Body Problem" (1996), at
http://members.aol.com/berean7/reduction.html.
Harris, C. L., Perspectives in Biology and Medicine (Winter 1975), pp. 179-184.
Hempel, Carl, Philosophy of Natural Science (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966).
Howe, Frederic, "The Age of the Earth: an Appraisal of Some Current Evangelical Positions, I and II," Bibliotheca Sacra 142 (January 1985): 23-37; (April 1985): 114-29.
Isaacs, Alan, A Dictionary of Physics (Walton Street, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985, 1996).
Johnson, Philip E., "What Is Darwinism?: Why Science Clings to a Fractured Paradigm", Christian Research Journal (July-August 1997): 20-26.
Moreland, J. P., Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1987).
Ramm, Bernard, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1954).
Ross, Hugh, The Creator and the Cosmos (NavPress, 1993, 1995).
Salmon, Wesley, Logic, 3rd Edition (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1963, 1984).
Weisburd, S., Science News (August 16, 1986), p. 103.
Wiley, E. O., Systematic Zoology 24(2):270 (1975).