A Close Look at Creationist Literature
I recently was handed a flyer from a student that was produced by the Institute of Creationist Research (ICR), entitled "Impact – Summary of Scientific Evidence For Creation" (May/June 1981). Since I am quite familiar with the group and their publications, I found nothing new in the flyer. I did become curious, however, by the References list at the end that gave the flyer the appearance of a well-researched piece of work, comparable to a reputable science research paper.
I decided to check the references by obtaining them at the UC Santa Cruz Science Library. What I found was quite remarkable, and the results are listed below. I will quote the arguments and then make comments about the references cited (a shorter version of my comments is given under "Summary".
ICR Argument 1:
"…the fossil record actually documents the separate origin of
primates in general, monkeys, apes, and men."
Reference:
Simons, E. L., "The Early Relatives of Man", Scientific American,
July 1964.
Summary:
This is a classic example of taking the reference out of context, as well as
a basic misunderstanding of the evolutionary history of primates, including humans.
Comment:
The reference cited says exactly the opposite of what is implied by the ICR
argument. In fact, the subtitle of the paper says it all: "New evidence from
fossils….. not only illuminates the main stages of primate evolution but also singles
out the ape stock from which the human line arose".
It is implied by ICR that "separate origins" means separate creation. The paper, however, not only traces back the origins of humans to early mammals, but points out that not all organisms are direct descendents of those that evolved previously. Rather, many organisms branch off and later either become extinct or give rise to new lineages of species. Therefore, ICR's argument is partly true as stated, but incorrect in its implications.
ICR Argument 2:
"Australopithecus, in the view of some leading evolutionists, was not
intermediate between ape and man…."
Reference:
Oxnard, Charles E., "Human Fossils: New Views of Old Bones," American
Biology Teacher, V. 41, 1979.
Summary:
Another example of taking the reference out of context.
Comments:
Dr. Oxnard was actually making an argument that is generally accepted today.
In this paper he says, "It is far more likely that the genus Homo is much older than
currently believed and that the australopithecines ….. represent only parallel
evolutionary remnants. The picture, therefore, rather than providing for a very simple
almost linear descent towards humans may in fact be far more like the radiation that is
more in line with biological views of evolution."
The last sentence is rather ironic. Underneath this ICR argument in the flyer is the classic picture of the "march of man", with an ape to the extreme left, followed by a walking ape, then an ape-like creature holding a club, and so on, up to a modern walking human. This is a mistaken picture of human evolution, implying that there is a linear progression of all the primates (exactly what Dr. Oxnard was warning against).
ICR Argument 3:
"Uniform processes appear insufficient to explain large portions of the
geologic record. Even the conventional uniformitarian geologists are beginning to yield to
evidences of rapid and catastrophic processes."
Reference:
Bhattacharyya, A., "Storm Deposits, etc.", Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology, V.50, 1980.
Summary:
This reference does not support what is implied by ICR.
Comments:
Uniformitarianism in geology is the belief that the study of natural
processes that are observable today can tell us what happened in the past (technically,
today's geologists are not Uniformitarians, but Actualists -- the Uniformitarians of
Charles Lyell's day held some other beliefs rejected by modern geologists). Creationists
believe this excludes catastrophes, such as the Noachian Flood mentioned in the
bible. In actuality geologists recognize catastrophic events of the past just as we can
observe such things as major floods, earthquakes, volcanoes today.
The paper is a description of several layers of sediments that give evidence of cyclic periods of storms that washed down sand from rivers, interspersed with calmer weather patterns that deposited mud. The storms were not "catastrophic" in the sense that ICR is using the term, and do not imply a Noachian Flood.
Why do creationists place emphasis on catastrophes? It is because they would have us believe the earth is relatively young, which would not be the case if geologic events took a long time. This, in turn, leads to the argument that the earth has not existed long enough to support evolution. However, they have difficulty explaining away such things as sandstone and limestone strata which are the result of long depositional periods.
ICR Argument 4:
"The ‘big-bang’ theory of the origin of the universe
contradicts much physical evidence and seemingly can only be accepted by faith"
Reference:
Slusher, Harold, The Origin of the Universe, 1978. Publisher, ICR.
Summary:
The reference is a book by the Institute itself, rather than actual science
research. Furthermore, the book is full of errors. Also, this argument has nothing to do
with the subject of evolution.
Comments:
I found it interesting that ICR would quote themselves as an authoritative
science reference. A good science research paper will only quote the same authors in
support of the paper under very special circumstances. In effect it is like saying,
"What I am telling you is authoritative – just ask me!" This is
particularly true since ICR rarely (if ever) actually does "science", that is,
test models, hypotheses, or predictions. Their primary "research" is done from a
library – they read preexisting scientific literature for statements to quote (quite
often out of context, as shown below).
I decided to read the book, as well as a review by Lawrence Staunton, Associate Professor of Physics at Drake University. To quote Dr. Staunton, "I find this book of absolutely no pedagogical value whatsoever", and gives examples of "intellectual dishonesty". Indeed, I agree. The argument of the book centers mostly on the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which is what the ICR flyer argument refers to). Unfortunately, both the book and the flyer demonstrate a total misunderstanding of the Law. Simply stated, this Law predicts the universe is moving to a state of higher entropy, or disorder. Creationists imply this prevents organisms to evolve from simpler to more complex form. However, they make the mistake of not accounting for a closed system (such as our solar system) where one segment of the system (such as plants) can "borrow" energy from another part (such as the sun, for photosynthesis).
As a final note, I must add that I always find it curious that creationists spend so much time discussing the "Big Bang" hypothesis when attacking evolutionary theory. The origin of the universe has absolutely nothing to do with principles of biological evolution. I suspect they do this because of the controversy among scientists themselves over the hypothesis (it is not a true scientific theory because it has not been tested long enough, nor fully accepted by most scientists, as evolution has). By forcing attention to an idea that is not nearly as solid as evolution, and then implying an association between the two, it is then easy to attack the weaker of the two and, therefore, imply problems with the other – a sort of "guilt by association" argument.
ICR Argument 5:
"A ‘strange rationale makes some physicists accept the
inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer’
"
Reference:
None
Summary:
If a paper is reputedly referencing its supporting material, then a quotation
must also be referenced. Also, the statement is a non sequitur.
Comment:
I suspect the person who made the quote is a member of ICR. At any
rate, the logic here is interesting. We accept the existence of electrons as a result of
the scientific method: a model is constructed based on observations of matter and then
that model is put to the test many times until it is accepted. If it doesn’t work as
predicted, the model is not accepted. Why the existence of a Designer should necessarily
be accepted along with that of electrons is not at all clear to me. I accept the idea that
the movement of electrons through a conductor produces the light emitted from my lamp, but
I don't necessarily need to consider anything supernatural at the same time.
Secondly, it should be noted that evolution does not necessarily exclude the existence of a God, or "Designer". Evolutionary theory only explains the mechanisms of organic evolution and makes no speculations as to whether or not a higher being is responsible for setting those mechanisms in place. Many scientists have a belief in God (in fact, it is estimated 40% are "theistic evolutionists") and, therefore, may not refuse the reality of a "Designer". It is a common creationist implication that all evolutionists are atheists.
ICR Argument 6:
"Mutations are always harmful or at least nearly always harmful in an
organism’s natural environment."
Reference:
Martin, C.P., "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution." 1954
Summary:
The reference is outdated. There is no argument in the reference against
evolution, per se. The argument itself is flawed.
Comment:
A good science research paper rarely refers to works published more than a
few years previous. This is because new research is changing the landscape so quickly (the
paper referred to here cites references as old as 1918). This is particularly true in
this case, since it is addressing a genetic issue – this paper was written about the
same time Watson and Crick were publishing their discovery of the structure of DNA.
The implication of the ICR argument is that mutations are insufficient to provide the fuel for natural selection and, therefore, evolution. If that were true, it does not necessarily follow that evolution could not occur. In fact, in the paper cited, Martin says, "That species have evolved seems to be beyond all reasonable doubt". (Martin, however, is actually suggesting a Lamarckian mechanism for evolution -- that continued use or disuse of a body part can be inherited. This is thoroughly rejected by today’s geneticists.)
This argument has false implications. We know have ample evidence that genetic alterations do not necessarily involve mutations (and not all mutations are harmful), but rather have commonly arisen from duplication, divergence and exon shuffling of old genes. In fact, separate body parts (particularly appendages and sensory tissue) are shown to have developed from the same cluster of genes shared by widely disparate species -- the difference is due to the timing of gene activation during development. Such genes and their protein products should retain similarities to their ancestral forms. Many examples support this, the most recent and convincing being the antifreeze protein that evolved from pancreatic trypsinogen in certain Antarctic fishes.
Finally, it should be noted that some mutations may be considered "harmful" in one context, but something quite different under other circumstances. An example is flightless birds, such as the Galapagos Cormorant that Darwin studied. These birds undoubtedly evolved from ancestors that flew. They still have, for instance, wishbones which are structures specific to birds because they provide attachment for flight muscles. As they became more adapted to an existence that did not require flight, however, mutations that affected their ability to fly were not selected against and, therefore, accumulated to the point of no return. Were these mutations "harmful"? It depends on the context.
ICR Argument 7:
"Natural selection is a tautologous [sic] concept, because it simply
requires the fittest organisms to leave the most offspring and at the same time it
identifies the fittest organisms as those that leave the most offspring."
Reference:
Popper, Karl, Objective Knowledge, 1975
Summary:
This is a misstatement of natural selection. The author of the argument was
an evolutionist.
Comment:
Karl Popper was a famous proponent of scientific logic, as well as an
evolutionist. He was referring to a later edition of The Origin of Species in which
Darwin had used the term, "survival of the fittest" after prodding from a
friend. Darwin later admitted this was a mistake (because of its circular reasoning), and
Popper was simply pointing this out. In short, "survival of the fittest" is a
flawed concept, but natural selection is not. ICR either doesn’t understand the
principles of natural selection, or is being less than honest with this argument.
ICR Argument 8:
"The strong bias of many evolutionists in seeking a link between apes
and man is shown by the near-universal acceptance of two ‘missing links’ that
were later proved to be a fraud in the case of Piltdown Man….and…Nebraska
Man."
Reference:
Straus, William L., "The Great Piltdown Hoax," Science,
V.119, 1954.
Summary:
This is not a true statement, and is not supported by the reference.
Comment:
Piltdown Man is in reference to a hoax whereby the jaw of an ape was
connected to the skull of a human. Piltdown’s authenticity was repeatedly questioned
over the years, but the original was kept under lock and key in a museum cellar; those
interested in examining it were given a mold. Unfortunately, the mold did not reveal the
two clues that would indicate this was a fraud: the jaw was ground down to fit, and a dye
was used to stain the bones to make them look old. Eventually, a new method of verifying a
fossil’s age – radiometric dating – was allowed to be used on the original
and the hoax was revealed.
The bias that perpetuated acceptance of this hoax was not, as ICR suggests, that there is a link between apes and humans (this is not a bias, but rather a well supported concept), but rather that human evolution involved an increase of intelligence before other human-like characteristics arrived (this led to a delayed acceptance of Australopithecus at the same time – a bipedal creature with an ape-like brain and "human" teeth). Scientists being human, there is bias among them, but science is self-correcting and eventually roots out fraud.
Which is more than can be said of the Paluxy River tracks touted by creationists as proof that humans existed at the same time as dinosaurs. It was a group of scientists that demonstrated convincingly (even to most creationists) that the tracks were not human, but to this day creationists still refer to the tracks in their literature, evidence that creationism is not science, but rather a system of beliefs rooted in faith and not self correcting.
ICR Argument 9:
"Extrapolating the observed rate of apparently exponential decay of the
earth’s magnetic field, the age of the earth or life seemingly could not exceed
20,000 years."
Reference:
Barnes, Thomas G., Origin and Destiny of the Earth’s Magnetic Field,
ICR, 1973.
Summary:
The paper was thoroughly shown to be in error. Again, ICR is quoting itself
for supporting material.
Comment:
Barnes, a creationist, argues that the geomagnetic field was created by
unknown processes at the time of creation of the earth and has been decaying irreversibly
and exponentially, with a half-life of about 1400 years since then. He concludes that the
field would have been impossibly large any further back than 8000 B.C.
His paper was refuted by G. Brent Dalrymple, USGS, in the Journal of Geological Education, 1983, V.31. Dalrymple states, "Paleomagnetic evidence shows that the earth’s field has existed for more than three billion years, and [contrary to Barnes’ assertions] the dipole field both fluctuates in strength and irregularly reverses polarity." Dalrymple points out numerous errors and mistaken assumptions in Barnes' argument.
ICR Argument 10:
"Radiometric dating methods depend on assumptions …. [that] may be
questionable."
Reference:
Slusher, Harold S., Critique of Radiometric Dating, ICR, 1973.
Summary:
This book, written by a creationist, makes very feeble arguments why
radiometric dating "may" be in error. Again, ICR is quoting itself for
supporting material.
Comments:
Slusher makes three main arguments:
First, he states no one now living observed conditions in the past, therefore we cannot
know that the presently observed radioactive decay laws really hold over long periods of
time. This argument is true, but ignores the enormous amount of supporting data we have.
It would be similar for me to state I can not know the sun existed 100 years ago because I
was not there to observe it.
Second, he argues there is some measure of uncertainty involved in the figures we gather from the dating. This ignores the fact that items are dated several times to insure against error, and that items dated by one method are frequently cross checked by other (and, sometimes, non-radiometric) methods. True, some margin of error is inherent, but nothing that could not resolve the difference between a 10,000 year old planet, and one that is 4 billion years old.
Third, he asserts some phenomena may have caused the radioactive decay laws to be invalid. He discusses such things as a "shielding magnetic field," or "unusual cosmic rays" or "vapor changes". Some of these phenomena were invented. In fact, no known natural phenomena have been observed to change the decay rate.
It is interesting to note that, while creationists are always looking for ways to discredit radiometric dating (which is becoming increasingly more difficult, now that dating results are being cross-checked with non-radiometric means), they performed an experiment using Carbon-14 dating of some dinosaur fossils to support the assertion that dinosaurs are not as old as claimed. Anyone with an elementary understanding of radiometric dating knows that Carbon-14 can not be used on anything more than a few thousand years old, due to the relatively short half-life of the element. The poor quality of the research was the reason no reputable scientific publication would publish the results – not, as the creationists claim, because there was a bias against them.
ICR Argument 11:
"The fossils of Neanderthal Man were once considered to represent a
primitive sub-human (Homo neanderthalensis), but these ‘primitive’ features are
now known to have resulted from nutritional deficiencies and pathological conditions; he
is now classified as fully human."
Reference:
Ivanhoe, Francis, "Was Virchow right about Neanderthal?" Nature,
V. 227, 1970.
Summary:
The reference cited deals with an apparently common disease
among Neanderthals, but does not make the assertion ICR implies it does. The argument
itself is misleading and false, and the reference taken out of context.
Comments:
Many fossils of Homo neanderthalensis exist, and are clearly
different than those of Homo sapiens. Virchow, a 19th century German anatomist,
argued that the skeletal features of Neanderthal were the result of rickets (a vitamin D
deficiency). This reference cited by ICR revives this idea, but the author clearly
recognizes Neanderthal as part of human evolution, but separate from Homo sapiens.
In fact, contrary to the argument given by ICR, Neanderthal is not classified as Homo sapiens by modern paleontologists. Recent research clearly demonstrates the DNA of Neanderthals is significantly different from modern humans to classify Neanderthal as a separate species.
ICR Argument 12:
"Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record, and
gaps appear systematically in the fossil record between various living kinds. These facts
indicate that basic kinds of plants and animals were created."
Reference:
Simpson, George G., The Major Features of Evolution, 1953.
Summary:
The paper cited not only specifically contradicts the implication made by
ICR, but gives many reasons why gaps are to be expected. It is, therefore, taken out of
context.
Comments:
It should raise suspicion when a prominent paleontologist/evolutionist is
referenced by creationists. Simpson opens the paper by stating, "It remains
true….that most new species, genera, and families ……appear in the record
suddenly." However, he goes on to say, "Origin by saltation is highly
improbable….the fossil record provides evidence against it and no valid or impelling
evidence for it…the fossil record does provide considerable information even
regarding many of the major transitions".
Simpson goes on to cite examples where the evolutionary history is remarkably complete (such as with the horse), notes that gaps are being filled constantly, and lists several reasons why the gaps can not necessarily be interpreted as evidence for creation: