Logically Implied Creationists' Beliefs
About Evolution
|
| In reviewing and discussing the
topic of "creation versus evolution" for almost
seven years now, I've arrived at a startling
conclusion: Creationists accept arguably large
portions of evolutionary theory. Specifically,
Creationists accept three concepts within
evolutionary theory, albeit with some
qualifications: evolution, microevolution, and
macroevolution. I'll address the qualifications
that Creationists pose for each concept here. |
| Evolution |
| "evolution ... In
biological terms: a change in the genetic
composition of a population over time."
(BioTech Life Science
Dictionary) |
| Notice that this definition, and
hence the Creationist acceptance of the term
"evolution," is quite limited. Creationists often
define evolution as "molecules-to-man," but that's
not how biologists define it. Thus I am not
attempting to play a semantic game here. I'm not
claiming, for example, that to accept "evolution"
means accepting "molecules-to-man"; rather, it
means accepting changes in gene pools of biological
populations. As evolution is defined by biologists
as referring to such changes, I conclude that
Creationists accept evolution in this sense. |
| I'll address other arguments
regarding semantics, later in this post. |
| Microevolution |
| "microevolution (adj.
microevolutionary) Definition: Evolution on a
molecular level (changes within DNA, i.e.
mutations), an individual organism level (DNA
recombination, chromosomal mutations, reproduction,
natural selection, etc.), and a population level
(genetic drifts, phyletic shifts, founder effects,
etc.)." (ibid) |
| Arguably, this is the
evolutionary meta-concept best accepted by
Creationists. However, there's still at least two
Creationist sticking points. |
| First, "microevolution" as used
by Creationists takes on a larger meaning. To them,
it means evolution (defined above) within a created
kind. Again this is an argument largely relating to
semantics, and I'll treat it later in this
post. |
| Second, and perhaps more
importantly, Creationists reject that
microevolution has "creative power." Specifically
mutations, as mentioned in the definition, are
viewed by Creationists as either meaningless or
destructive; commonly, Creationists view mutations
as a "loss of information." |
| Macroevolution |
| "macroevolution (adj.
macroevolutionary) Definition: Evolution on a
species level (speciation and extinction) and at
higher taxonomic classifications (appearance and
disappearance of genuses, families, orders, etc.)."
(ibid) |
| Among evolutionary concepts, the
term "macroevolution" is one of the most
contentious for Creationists. Thus, it may be
surprising for many people here to see me include
within the Creationist acceptance of evolutionary
theory concepts. However, the reasoning leading to
my conclusion is quite straightforward, once one
sees what "macroevolution" really means, defined
above. |
| First, the definition of
macroevolution specifies extinctions, at the
species level and above. Extinctions weren't even
considered two centuries ago; then, it was
inconceivable for an entire species to die out. But
the great Creationist naturalist Cuvier
demonstrated the fact of extinction in the early
1800s, by pointing to the unusual fossil forms that
have no living descendants today. Whether by
accepting the facts, or by simply accepting the
word of a great Creationist, Creationists have no
trouble accepting extinctions -- part of the
definition of macroevolution. |
| Second, macroevolution includes
the concept of speciation. Speciation simply refers
to the process of one species splitting into two
species (definition: BioTech Life Science
Online Dictionary). Curiously, the topic of
speciation is rarely addressed by Creationists,
and for a very simple reason: Creationists
accept that speciations occur. Here's an example
of such acceptance from none other than Henry M.
Morris, considered a founding father of modern
Creationism: |
| [Morris]>Creationists have no
problem, however, with speciation, or even the
"evolution" of new genera in some instances, as
long as such development does not extend to the
"family" (dogs, cats, horses, etc.).< (Henry M.
Morris, "The Microwave of Evolution," BTG No. 152a
August 2001, Institute for Creation Research,
available at http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-152a.htm) |
| Third and perhaps most
importantly, macroevolution includes the
"appearance ... of genuses." Again, Morris'
explicit acknowledgement makes Creationist
acceptance of this phenomenon an easy point to
demonstrate. There is an important caveat: there's
at least one case of a "new" genus that
Creationists do not accept: that of genus _Homo_
within Family Hominidae. |
| Fourth and perhaps least
importantly here, Creationists occasionally suggest
that they accept rare appearances of higher
classification levels, including family, order,
class, and even phylum. Such suggestion comes from
responses addressing evolutionist-supplied examples
of speciations and genera appearances: "they're
still birds," for example, in response to the
example of the Galapagos finches. Unfortunately,
I've never seen an explicit statement by
Creationists that indicates accepting any
appearances of the higher classification levels of
family and so forth; IMX attempts to clarify
Creationist vague statements such as "they're still
birds" are usually met with equally vague
Creationist responses. |
| Again, there's a semantic angle
to Creationist objection to "macroevolution." I'll
review the semantics arguments, and post my
conclusions, in part 2 of this topic. |
| Semantics |
| I expect Creationists
to object to my claims of accepting evolution,
microevolution, and macroevolution, as playing
word games -- semantical tricks. I'll attempt
to address these presumed objections here. |
| I try to stress clarity in these
online discussions. Communication is difficult in
this medium as it is, especially concerning
potentially emotional issues such as these;
communication is further hindered by unclear or
distorted meanings of words and technical terms.
This is one reason why I often include definitions
in my posts. I don't attempt "win arguments" by
posting definitions; rather, I attempt to clarify
the pertinent issues by carefully defining the
terms of the discussion. |
| Since I make my claims regarding
evolution and related concepts strictly within the
biological context, IMO it makes sense to use the
language as biologists. Hence, when biologists use
these terms, the definitions are those posted
above, or *very* similar to them. Again, this helps
to clarify the biological context of my claims
here. |
| Upon posting these definitions
and demonstrating Creationist acceptance of the
defined concepts -- to various degrees -- I try to
ascertain the actual issues of contention.
Occasionally Creationists respond clearly to such
attempts, and I appreciate such responses. More
often, however, further dialog is often confused
and equally unclear, or else it's simply and rather
abruptly curtailed. Again, my goal in posting
questions concerning clear statements of
contentious issues is a clear dialog, towards
further goals of discussing with substance and,
ultimately, more concerted effort into looking
further into the issues by consulting a number of
sources, especially the professional scientific
literature and the available information from
Creationists "intelligent design" proponents. |
| Moving onto more specific
presumed objections, Creationists might argue that
the terms microevolution, macroevolution, and
evolution are "redefined" by evolutionists,
especially the latter two terms. |
| The fact is that microevolution
and macroevolution are terms *coined* by
evolutionists, to better describe their ideas: "The
terms macroevolution and microevolution were first
coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii
Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the
transliteration), in his German-language work
Variabilität und Variation, which was the
first attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and
evolution" (John Wilkins, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html,
"Macroevolution"). It's difficult to make the
charge of evolutionist redefinition stick, when
evolutionists defined these concepts in the
first place. More likely, *Creationists* have
redefined these terms to suit their
purposes. |
| The case for "evolution" as an
evolutionist redefinition is somewhat better.
Evolution as a word existed long before Darwin; the
Latin word "evolutio" existed long before then, for
example. Before Darwin's ideas became widely
accepted by biologists, "evolution" did *not* refer
to biological evolution as it's known today; more
importantly, it didn't mean "molecules-to-man"
either! IOW "evolution" represents a case where
both Creationists and evolutionists have adopted
new meanings for an existing word. Thus it's
difficult for Creationists to make the charge
stick, that evolutionists have redefined evolution,
when in fact Creationists have redefined the term
themselves, just as biologists have done. |
| Creationists have charged that
"evolution" USED TO BE defined by evolutionists as
something akin to "molecules-to-man."
Unfortunately, attempts to substantiate this claim
have failed. I've seen no references, other than
Creationist texts making the charge, that support
this claim. I'm welcome to examine the possibility
that evolutionists indeed USED TO define
"evolution" this way; however, until I see some
substance to the claim, I'm forced to conclude that
the claim is unsubstantiated at best, or simply
wrong at worst. |
| I attempt to clarify the issues
of contention by Creationists by citing two
specific concepts that Creationists seem to agree
*do* constitute such issues: common descent and
abiogenesis. |
| Abiogenesis of course is not
part of evolutionary theory. Creationists often
claim otherwise -- a related claim to the charge of
evolutionist redefinition of the term "evolution,"
overviewed above. Again, I see no reason to
conclude that evolutionary theory, let alone
biological evolution itself, has ever included the
concept of abiogenesis within its realm. Yes, there
are a number of Creationist texts that claim
otherwise, but they never offer any substance -- no
references to the biological literature -- that
support this charge. |
| That brings us to the one
meta-issue of contention that fits squarely within
the realm of evolutionary theory, and thus biology:
common descent, or the notion that all living
species share common ancestry. I agree that
Creationists do not accept common descent, and I
would hope to demonstrate that their objections to
common descent are often based upon faulty
reasoning and unsubstantiated claims of fact.
However, mostly I invite Creationists to clarify
their objection -- "I accept evolution, but I
reject common descent" might be one way to do so. I
especially invite Creationists to look deeper into
the literature for themselves, to gain a better
appreciation of the issues involved. |
| Conclusion |
| Creationists may object to my
claim that they accept evolution, microevolution,
and macroevolution. However, my claim is based upon
the biological concepts that these terms reference;
IOW I'm stressing acceptance of concepts over
words. I realize that, even then, Creationist
acceptance of these concepts is qualified, to
greater and lesser degrees, especially regarding
the concept of macroevolution. |
| In the interest of clear
communication, I ask Creationists to avoid claims
that say things like "I don't like evolution," or
"I disagree that macroevolution is a fact." Rather,
I would ask that they either use other terms to
outline their objections in a clear manner; the
term "common descent" is especially useful in this
context. |
| Failing that, I would ask that
Creationists qualify their objections regarding
these terms, preferably by defining what the terms
"evolution," "microevolution," and "macroevolution"
mean for *them*. While there's a danger in this
route, consistent use of terms in these discussions
would go a long way towards more substantive
discussion, and ease the posting burden of all
participants -- IMO we spend *way* too much time
attempting to clarify the simplest concepts to one
another. |