|
Sadly, in our
nation today there is a strong movement under way to steal
from our children the freedom to think and examine their world
outside of a very narrow, all-pervasive religious perspective.
While it is common to hear in the media that it is Christian
“fundamentalists” behind this movement, exactly the opposite
is true. Rather, those who embrace the religion of
naturalistic materialism (in its various forms such as
humanism, atheism, etc.) have successfully done what many
thought impossible: they have installed their own religion as
the official religion of the United States government,
banishing any and all competing world-views.
One of the results
of this new situation is that if one wishes to be thought of
as “scientifically astute” or ‘educated” one must bow before
the orthodox idol of materialistic thought, primarily
expressed in its greatest child, the theory of evolution. If
one dares to ask the freedom to fit the facts of scientific
research into any other theory than that of evolution, one is
automatically the target of ad hominem attacks, and, sadly,
slanderous abuse. It seems that no level of abject lying or
misrepresentation is not allowable to the devotee of
naturalistic materialism-all is fair in the defense of the
orthodox religion. Surely no Roman Catholic inquisitor was
more dutiful than the modem defenders of naturalistic
materialism.
But, we are told,
there is no possible way that any other view could be true!
Really? Well, let’s take some of the facts of science and
demonstrate that what we know to be true fits far better
within a theistic/creationist viewpoint than an
atheistic/materialistic one.
We shall first
looks the function of natural selection and ask the question,
"which theory best explains and even predicts the existence of
natural selection in species today?”
If, in any
instance, it is found that the information better fits into
the creation model than the evolution model, then surely we by
this see that simple honesty demands our granting the freedom
for further examination in this direction. Only an incredibly
deep prejudice, from I submit from a commitment to the
religion of materialism, can possibly provide a basis for a
denial of such freedom.
The make-up of
animal and vegetable species, genetically speaking, includes a
mechanism that allows a species to adapt to changing
environmental conditions that, without the existence of this
mechanism, would result in the extinction of the species. This
process or mechanism is known as natural selection. How does
it work? Basically, the forces of predatory or environmental
selection work upon the inherent ability of the genetic
mechanisms to change and adapt to allow the species sea whole
(not the individuals of a particular generation, but
generations further along the time-line) to survive and adapt.
Some have
erroneously described this process simply as "the survival of
the fittest” That is not exactly an accurate way of describing
the process. A better description would be "the nourishment
(and eventual survival) of those whose genetic make-up becomes
predominate in the species’ gene-pool” but most people
wouldn’t remember such a description. Natural selection is the
process whereby the spectrum of phenotypic manifestations of
the genetic make-up is “taken advantage of” by the selection
pressures of the environment At “stasis", the genetic "center"
of a species might be at point "c." Stasis would be described
as a time when there is no specific or directional pressures
being exerted upon the species, either by predation or
environment. Hence, those individuals with genetic makeup “g”
predominate in the gene-pool of the species; that is, those
whose genetic make-up is "g” match closely the paint “c” in
the center of the genetic spectrum of the gene-pool;
these individuals,
then, have more viable offspring that pass on their genotype
than an individual with, say, genotype “i”. Since “i" is not
as well adapted to the environment as "g" then “i” will not,
as long as environmental conditions remain the same, replace
“g” as the center-point of the genotypic spectrum of this
species.
Now, lets say that
a shift takes place in some environmental factor. The classic
Illustration is predation. A new predator enters the
environment with, by Its nature, begins to being more pressure
upon the individuals with the “g" genotype than the “i”
genotype (which was, till this time, a minority in the
gene-pod). The practical result of this is that those with the
“i” genotype begin to have more viable offspring in the second
generation than those with the “g” genotype. The effect over
time, of course, is a shift of the center of the gene-pool
from "c" (favoring the “g” genotype) to say, “d” (favoring the
“i” genotype). Obviously I am simplifying this greatly, as
there might be numerous genetic factors involved, complex
selection pressures that combine predation, etc. But hopefully
the basic outlines are clear.
Now, his important
to differentiate between natural selection and
micro-mutational evolution as proposed in the neo-Darwinian
model. Natural selection, as described above, is not dependent
upon, nor driven by, any mutation in the genetic code of the
individuals within the species. As we saw, the above genotypes
in our example "c” and “i”) both existed together in the
gene-pool; the environmental pressures did not “create”
anything new, but the ability of the species to adapt was
derived from the pre-existing range of genetic possibilities.
Now, it is dear, then, why the neo-Darwinian synthesis must
place such a huge emphasis and weight upon the existence of
mutation to provide ‘new” genetic material upon which, over
great expanses of time, natural selection can then work to
bring about the incredible complexity and variation of life as
we see it today.
Now, in light of
all this, let’s ask some simple questions. First, which of the
two models would predict such a mechanism as natural
selection? Well, natural selection is
primarily a
mechanism of conservation. It is not the “engine" of change
that is so often claimed for it. Which model would predict a
mechanism that would allow for the conservation of a species?
If a Creator did indeed produce a purposeful creation, would
not such a mechanism be expected? And how shall the
evolutionist explain the origination of the process of natural
selection? Clearly the model does not predict it at all, and
neither can it provide a logical explanation for how it came
about. We need not here enter into the discussion of the
impossibility of
the evolutionary position to explain the origin of the genetic
mechanisms themselves; the point is that the whole spectrum of
scientific evidence relative to natural selection fits
perfectly and without contradiction into the creationist
model, and tie the evolutionist to points to natural
selection, he cannot do so in the same way as the creationist.
The evolutionist must emphasize the exceptional
circumstance, rather than the norm. Now, it is admitted
that bath sides of this debate must, at times, engage in some
“fitting” of the facts; this is simply put of the process. But
it would seem that on such a basic issue as natural selection,
such “fitting” would be looked at with a good bit of
skepticism; sadly, ft seems the prejudice of the religious
views of researchers at times gets in the way.
A further note
might be added at this point: scientists identify two
different kinds or extremes in reproduction strategy. These
strategies are known as r-selection and K- selection. Those
species that would be characterized as “r-selecting” species
are those that are “opportunistic” in their methodology; they
have high intrinsic rates of growth, rapid development into
the adult stages, early reproduction, small body size, and
minimum care of young. Frogs (and most amphibians) would be
identified as “r-selectors”. K-selection, on the other hand,
is just the opposite. These species (such as an elephant or an
ape) would have lower reproduction rates, later development
times, larger body size, and far more energy devoted to care
of young.
What does this
have to do with the current discussion? If we think briefly
about the relationship between r- and K-selecting species, we
see that the r-selectors would exhibit much more ability to
“utilize micro-mutation” in development, if this is actually
what happens. Now, the creationist would look at this
situation and say, "well, the r- selecting organisms will
display a much wider variety of phenotypic manifestation and
speciation than will the K-selectors; one will have, for
example, a far greater range of “insects” than one will have
of “apes” because of this-one will have lateral, not vertical,
differentiation.” But the evolutionist is faced with a real
difficulty; for the variation, mutationally speaking, between
each of the K-selecting “higher’ mammals (as an example) is
far greater than that between r-selecting amphibians or
insects. Hence, to provide for the incredible number of
micro-mutations necessary to explain the incredible complexity
of the higher mammals (such as the human brain!) one must have
greater (not lesser) opportunity for mutation, which requires
large numbers of generations. But right here the facts are
opposite of what is needed for the evolutionary theory to
function! As one moves toward the more complex or inter-active
animals, one has fewer and fewer generations to account for
the increase in complexity! This is surely no problem for the
creationist, but it is a great hurdle for the evolutionist!
Hence we see, from
just this brief examination, that the scientific evidence as
we know it can successfully be fit into the creationist
model-In fact, that it fits with better consistency and
accuracy than in the evolutionary model. This alone is
sufficient to demonstrate for all the sad religious bigotry
that predominates in scientific circles today that would
eliminate the freedom to think in any way other than the
“orthodox’ way of naturalistic materialism.
On the subject of
An Early Oxidizing Atmosphere:
Having examined
mineralogical evidence in this regards, Erich Dimroth and
Michael Kimberley said, “In general we find no evidence in the
sedimentary distribution of carbon. sulfur, uranium, or iron
that an oxygen-free atmosphere has existed at any time during
the span of geological history recorded in well-preserved
sedimentary rock” (1970, Can. J. Earth Sci., 13,1161). Not
only this, but we are now aware that elemental oxygen is
formed by the free dissociation of water molecules under
ultra-violet radiation; without the ozone layer filtering out
wave-lengths below 3000 Angstroms, this dissociation would
result in a (relatively) large amount of elemental oxygen -
enough, according to Carver (1981, Nature 292, p. 136) to form
an ozone layer at 0.01 PAL The point being that there is more
evidence of an oxidizing atmosphere than against it. All
current models of abiogenesis eliminate oxygen from the
environment. indeed, J.C.G. Walker, in his Evolution of the
Atmosphere (New York: MacMillan. 1977, pg. 224) said that
the “strongest evidence” for a reducing (no oxygen) atmosphere
is that we know that chemical evolution took place! Talk about
circular reasoning! If you will take time to examine Bradley,
Thaxton and Olsen, you will find that the concensus is
shifting away from the position taken by many modem writers.
Foreword to
The Mystery of Life’s Origin written by
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Professor of Biology at San Francisco State
University
(Book by Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen)
The Mystery of
Life’s Origin presents
an extraordinary new analysis of an age-old question: How did
life start on earth? The authors deal forthrightly and
brilliantly with the major problems confronting scientists
today in their search for life’s origins. They understand the
impasse in current laboratory and theoretical research and
suggest a way around it. Their arguments are cogent, original,
and compelling. This book is sure to stimulate much animated
discussion amongst scientists and laymen. It is very likely
that research on life’s origins will move in somewhat
different directions once the professionals have read this
important work
The modem
experimental study of the origin of the first life on earth is
now entering its fourth decade, if we date the inception of
this field or research to Stanley Miller's pioneering work in
the early 1950s. Since Miller's Identification of several (racemic)
protein-forming amino acids in his electric discharge
apparatus. Numerous follow-up studies have been conducted.
Conforming in varying degrees to the requirements of the
so-called "simulation paradigm,” these experiments have
yielded detectable amounts of most of the major kinds of
biochemical substance as well as a variety of organic
microscopic structures suggested to be similar to the
historical precursors of the first living cells.
This program of
research can be regarded as a natural extension of Darwin’s
evolutionary views of the last century. The goal of the work
is to find plausible uniformitarian mechanisms for the gradual
spontaneous generation of living matter from relatively simple
molecules thought to have been abundant on the surface of the
primitive earth.
The experimental
results to date have apparently convinced many scientists that
a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life will be
found, but there are significant reasons for doubt. In the
years since the publication of Biochemical Predestination,
I have been increasingly struck by a peculiar feature of many
of the published experiments in the field. I am not referring
to those studies conducted more or less along the lines of
Miller's original work, although there are firm grounds for
criticizing those studies as well. I am referring to those
experiments designed to elucidate possible pathways of
prebiotic synthesis of certain organic substances of biologic
interest, such as purines and pyrimidines, or polypeptides.
In most cases the
experimental conditions in such studies have been so
artificially simplified as to have virtually no bearing on any
actual processes that might have taken place on the primitive
earth. For example, if one wishes to find a possible prebiotic
mechanism of condensation of free amino acids to polypeptides,
it is not likely that sugars or aldehydes would be added to
the reaction mixture. And yet, how likely is it that amino
acids (or any other presumed precursor substance) occurred
anywhere on the primitive earth free from contamination
substances, either in solution or the solid state? The
difficulty is that if sugars or aldehydes were also present
polypeptides would not form. Instead an interfering
cross-reaction would occur between amino acids and sugars to
give complex, insoluble polymeric material of very dubious
relevance to chemical evolution. This problem of potentially
interfering cross-reactions has been largely neglected in much
of the published work on the chemical origins of life. The
possible implications of such an omission merit careful study.
Other aspects of
origin-of-life research have contributed to my growing
uneasiness about the theory of chemical evolution. One of
these is the enormous gap between the most complex “protocell”
model systems produced in the laboratory and the simplest
living cells. Anyone familiar with the ultrastructural and
biochemical complexity of the genus Mycoplasma, for example,
should have serious doubts about the relevance of any of the
various laboratory “protocells” to the actual historical
origin of cells, in my view, the possibility of closing this
gap by laboratory simulation of chemical events likely to have
occurred on the primitive earth is extremely remote.
Another
intractable problem concerns the spontaneous origin of the
optical isomer preferences found universally in living matter
(e.g., L- rather than D-amino acids in proteins, D-rather than
L- sugars in nucleic acids). After all the prodigious effort
that has gone into attempts to solve this great question over
the years, we are really no nearer to a solution today than we
were thirty years ago.
Finally, in this
brief summary of the reasons for my growing doubts that life
on earth could have begun spontaneously by purely chemical and
physical means, there is the problem of the origin of genetic,
i.e., biologically relevant, information in biopolymers. No
experimental system yet devised has provided the slightest
clue as to how biologically meaningful sequences of subunits
might have originated in prebiotic polynucleotides or
polypeptides. Evidence for some degree of spontaneous sequence
ordering has been published, but there is no indication
whatsoever that the non-randomness is biologically
significant. Until such evidence is forthcoming one I
certainly cannot claim that the possibility of a naturalistic
origin of life have been demonstrated.
In view of these
and other vexing problems in origin-of-life research, there
has been a need for some years now for a detailed, systematic
analysis of all major aspects of the field. It is time to
re-examine the foundations of this research in such a way that
all the salient lines of criticism are simultaneously kept in
view. The Mystery of Life's Origin admirably fills this
need. The authors have addressed nearly all the problems
enumerated above and several other important ones as well.
They believe, and I now concur, that there is a fundamental
flaw in all current theories of the chemical origins of life.
Although the tone of the book is critical, the authors have I
written in it the positive hope that their analysis will help
us find a better theory of origins. Such an approach is, of
course, entirely consistent with the manner in which
scientific advances have occurred in the past.
In the author's
criticisms are valid, one might ask, why have they not been
recognized or stressed by workers in the field? I suspect that
part of the answer is that many scientists would hesitate to
accept the authors’ conclusion that the fundamentally
implausible that unassisted matter and energy organized
themselves into living systems. Perhaps these scientists fear
that acceptance of this conclusion would open the door to the
possibility (or the necessity) of a supernatural origin of
life. Faced with this prospect many investigators would prefer
to continue in their search for a naturalistic explanation of
the origin of life along the lines marked out over the last
few decades, In spite of the many serious difficulties of
which we I are now aware. Perhaps the fallacy of scientism is
more widespread than we think.
One’s
presuppositions about the origin of life, and especially the
assumption that this problem will ultimately yield to a
persistent application of current methodology can certainly
influence which lines of evidence and argument one chooses to
stress, and which are played down or avoided altogether. What
the authors have done is to place before us essentially all
the pertinent lines of criticism in one continuous statement
and to invite us to face them squarely.
All scientists
interested in the origin-of-life problem would do well to
study this book carefully and to evaluate their own work in
this light of its arguments.
Dean H. Kenyon
Professor of Biology
San Francisco State University |
