The Long Debate:
Evolution vs. Creation
Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
(Investigator 146, 2012
subject of biological
origins has been a matter of great debate among scientists, educators,
and theologians ever since Charles Darwin popularized evolutionary
Public interest in this subject is supported by the fact that popular
books about evolution, including those by scientists Richard Dawkins,
Stephen Jay Gould, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, and Robert Jastrow,
were all best sellers. Since then a whole new world of inquiry has
opened up. The research in this area that has caused many to question
the ability of damage to the DNA genetic code called mutations to
convert some hypothetical first cell into humans.
contemporaries believed that the cell, the basis of all life, was a
very simple structure, about as complex as pure mud or gum. This
conclusion has changed enormously in the last century. Francis Crick
and Fred Hoyle even argued that, due to our advance of knowledge of the
enormous complexity of the cell, the probability that life could have
arisen on earth is becoming increasingly remote (Crick, 1981). Many
other scientists have concluded that it now seems very improbable,
close to impossible, that life could ever have spontaneously arisen on
the earth. The environmental conditions were never conducive to
abiogenesis, nor was there enough time, even if we allowed the earth a
4.6 billion year history. New research is eliminating what was once
believed to be the answer to the naturalistic origin of life.
and the probability of life originating spontaneously in some
primordial sea eons ago on earth or elsewhere is nil, the hypothesis
that life’s origin on earth was from outer space via comets or
meteorites is also nil. This idea was proposed by the eminent
astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe in their book, Diseases
from Space (1979), in which they propose that, not only did the
seeds of life come from outer space, but that new diseases are still
arriving via comets. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick in his book, Life
Itself: Its Origin and Nature also agreed that it is so improbable
that life could have evolved on earth, therefore life must have
originated somewhere in outer space (1981).
are just two
examples of the many books that attempt to deal with the origin-of-life
problem. University of Toledo Astrophysicist Armand Delsemme believes
that the elements and compounds required for all living things,
including hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen, came from comets that brought
various organic materials to a lifeless, airless earth around four
billion years or so ago (1998).
the main reasons
why many scientists have propounded the idea of panspermia is not
because of the evidence — only circumstantial and indirect evidence
exists for this theory — but because of a lack of evidence for
abiogenesis on earth. As a result of their research on
origins of life on
earth, a biologist and an astronomer have performed the improbable feat
of reinventing religion. Conventional science has invoked the workings
of chemistry over almost limitless time to bring the order of life out
of the planet’s primitive chaos. The life seems to have begun rather
quickly; the more scientists have looked, the farther back they have
found signs of life: the earliest fossil cells, about 3.6 billion years
ago, are almost as old as the solar system itself. Pondering such
mysteries, Noble prize winning biologist Francis Crick and Sir Fred
Hoyle, the distinguished astronomer, have independently supposed a deus
ex galaxia to explain the sudden appearance of life on earth: the
‘seeding’ of space by intelligent beings from distant corners of the
universe (Adler and Carey, 1982).
research, and that
of thousands of other scientists, has clear implications for theology.
Many of the recent discoveries in science and the knowledge explosion
as a whole, especially relative to origins, do not support the
classical Darwinian evolutionary model.
in this long
debate also a result of the fact that many aspects of evolution,
especially the gradual Darwinian model, are now being challenged by
many informed critics. One example is the punctuated equilibria model
that contradicts the gradual Darwinian theory. Keith Miller, Professor
of Biology at Brown University, claims that the fossil record shows
neither the gradual evolution of animals, nor an instant creation of
every animal kind at one point in time. He openly admits that animals
seem to appear out of nowhere in the fossil record and then later
become extinct, supporting creationism (Miller, 1982, pp. 85-89).
the lack of evidence for the evolution of entirely new genera, the
problem of transitional forms, and the lack of vestigial and nascent
organs. Another issue is the complete lack of evidence for the
evolution of most all animals, such as giraffes. The fossil record
should have preserved numerous transitional forms between the early,
short-necked giraffes, which must have existed if evolution occurred,
and the modern, tall-necked giraffes, but none is found (Bergman,
2002). Similar questions abound.
for the lack of evidence for primary speciation is that it takes a long
time (the over a hundred thousand years estimate is often given by
scientists). Thus, although microevolution actually occurs before our
very eyes, it occurs so slowly that it is not apparent to us.
Scientific research has progressed immensely in the past few years, and
many contend that much of this evidence is detrimental to the theory of
evolution. It is for this reason that Gould developed his Punctuated
Equilibria theory —evolution proceeds in jumps, not gradually as Darwin
evolution on various racist theories, such as the Nazi race supremacy
theories in Germany prominent before and during WWII, is another issue
that has been well-documented in many books such as Pure Society:
From Darwin to Hitler (Pichot, 2009).
Why Darwinism is Racism
must determine if
one original pair (monogenism) of humans originally existed, or if
there were many original humans, each coming from a separate gene pair,
a view called polygenism. This is an important question because
evolutionary assumptions imply polygenism. Furthermore, many of the
small differences in a population that exist will in time become
exaggerated by natural selection pruning out the weaker members. This
process, called speciation or raciation, is essentially
the development of races, which is hypothesized to occur among all
living creatures, plant, animal, and human.
any population of
animals, minor differences always exist, some that facilitate survival
for those who have advantageous traits, other traits that impede
survival. Evolution teaches that these slight superior advantages
caused by minor differences become major differences in time (the
process called evolution, which is the source of races). In
time, the “weaker” of the species (the weaker or inferior race) is
wiped out, leaving the superior race. Thus, if Darwinism is true, the
same process must still be taking place with humans today.
gives rise to the
concept that some races are superior or better than others. In early
evolutionary thought, it was thought that the white or Aryan race was
superior, and the Oriental and Black races were inferior, i.e., less
evolved, and less fit to survive. However, evolutionists must now
reject this view due to advancing knowledge and partly due to social
saw “primitive” people as living links between mankind and the apes,
providing what they interpreted as one of the strongest evidences for
Darwinism. Entire “racial” groups were labeled inferior and mistreated
according to this assumption. The Australian Aborigines were thought to
be the “first” men, the most primitive race, a living modern link
between humans and the apes. Evolution is clearly racist, or more
accurately, raciationist (Gould, 1981; Bergman, 1980).
“race” and “ethnic group,” were given scientific legitimacy, they were
used for political ends. André Pichot, in an analysis of the
relationship between science, politics, and ideology from Nazism to the
various eugenicist research programs, has documented that racism was
supported by eminent scientific organizations from the beginning of the
twentieth century to the 1950s. Today, the mapping of the human genome
and rapid advances in gene therapies have resurrected the dream of a
more perfect race (Silver, 1997).
Can Everything be
Explained by Time, Chance and Natural Law?
is an attempt
on the part of many scientists to explain the entire universe, i.e.,
matter, energy, and all living things including plants, by time, chance
and natural law. Evolution concludes that there is no need to posit an
intelligence outside of, or apart from, natural law. Other scientists,
such as the eminent astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe,
conclude that this view is untenable.
question that must be
addressed is, not only if evolution has occurred, but if it is
occurring now. Many scientists conclude that human evolution, and that
of other life forms, has greatly slowed down, or even largely stopped.
Thus evolution in the past is not reducible to evolution occurring in
the present. Although secondary speciation commonly occurs (an animal
born with unique characteristics that are obviously inherited from the
parental gene pool), no one has observed primary speciation, or one in
which a new genera, or even a new significant trait arising from an
existing one, occurs.
question boils down
to the mind-body problem on which two positions are now common, the
dualist position (matter is not everything and a non-material reality
exists) and the monist (matter is everything and no spirit
Are Mutations the
problem for evolution
is not survival of the fittest but the arrival of the fittest.
Evolutionists now postulate that the source of the fittest is
mutations, damage to the genome and genetic copying mistakes, in spite
of the fact that mutations can produce changes, but mutations almost
always are near neutral or harmful — very rarely are mutations
problem of the origin
of, and differentiation of, life forms has been with us for several
thousand years and, in its wider sense, will likely be debated for some
time. The issues related to the creation-evolution controversy are
unique in that, in contrast to many controversies, it is far from being
over and is, in fact, increasingly being debated in science and is the
subject of many papers, presentations, and conferences. Mutations do
not solve the problem of the ultimate origin of biological information,
nor has any other naturalistic theory.
Adler, Jerry and John
Carey. 1982. In Newsweek. March 1.
Bergman, Jerry. 1980.
“Evolution, Race and Equality of Intelligence.” Creation Research
Society Quarterly, 17(2):127-134, Sept.
Bergman, Jerry. 2002.
“The Giraffe’s Neck: Another Icon of Evolution Falls.” T.J. Technical
Crick, Francis. 1981.
Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Delsemme, Armand. 1998. Our
Cosmic Origins From the Big Bang to the Emergence of Life and
Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1981. The Mismeasure of Man, New York: W.W. Norton Co.
Hoyle, Fred and Chandra
Wickramasinghe. 1979. Diseases from Space. New York:
Harper & Row
Miller, Keith. 1982.
“Special Creation and the Fossil Record: The Central Fallacy,” The
American Biology Teacher. 44(2):85-89. .February
André. 2009. Pure Society: From Darwin to Hitler.
New York: Verso.
Silver, Lee M. 1997. Remaking
Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books.