Creation Without Compromise

The case of the shrinking elephant tusks

Image April 2, 2017March 2, 2017Jon Dykstra

elephant Last year I spent some time reading through Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution with a friend. As Dawkins explains in his preface, while he has written a number of books about evolution, “I realized that the evidence for evolution itself was nowhere explicitly set out, and this is a serious gap that I needed to close.” So in this book he sets forth his best case for evolution, making it an intriguing book to contend with.

Some of his arguments have ready answers, and some do not, and my hope in sharing both the answered and the unanswered is that readers may be better prepared to contend with evolution, neither overestimating nor underestimating the challenge it presents.

At some point I hope to include a chapter by chapter response, but I’m going to begin with Chapter 5, because it is one of the most interesting. Dawkins titled this chapter “Before our very eyes,” and it is here that he shares what he sees as examples of evolution that occurred “so fast…we can see evolution happening with our own eyes during one human lifetime.”

Today we’ll take a look at the first example he gives, about elephant’s tusks.

Chapter 5: Example #1 – THE CASE OF THE SHRINKING ELEPHANT TUSK

Dawkins believes the African elephant may have “evolved” a smaller tusk size in the space of 33 years. From 1925-1958 the Uganda Games Department monitored tusk size and noticed a decrease in size that was “highly statistically significant, which means that it is almost certainly a real trend, not a random chance effect.”

Why are elephant tusks shrinking? Dawkins proposes that, because “hunters tend to pick on the individuals with the largest tusks” this “means that, at least in theory, smaller-tusked individuals will be at a selective advantage.”

While acknowledging this is merely a plausible explanation, and there may be others unrelated to natural selection he concludes “I am inclined to take seriously the possibility that this is a true evolutionary trend.”

Response

Dawkins repeatedly speaks of creationists in his book – Greatest Show on Earth is supposed to be an answer to them – but this example left me wondering just how familiar he was with creationists and their arguments.

Why?

Because this example of “evolution in action” is one creationists could use to support our position. Creationists don’t find natural selection controversial. We believe change does happen, and quickly – after all, we’re the folks who believe that the vast variety of dogs we see today came from just a few kinds present on the ark!

So if elephant tusks are trending smaller over the course of a generation or two, that fits in well with the creationist model.

What it doesn’t do is offer any sort of evidence for the molecule-to-man form of evolution Dawkins supports. A smaller average for tusk-size is a horizontal change – no new information is needed, just selection from what’s already present. But for evolution of the sort Dawkins defends we need an explanation for a vertical change – how beings can grow in complexity, evolving from that single-celled creature to something elephant-size.

Either Dawkins is unaware of that fact creationists also believe in natural selection – which would mean he really needs to do his homework! – or he is knowingly and deliberately pulling a bait and switch here, presenting one form “evolution” in which the word means little more than “change” and offering that up as if it were proof for the very different sort of “molecule-to-man” evolution.

For more on this point see:

The Big Bang and Genesis

March 2, 2017Wes Bredenhof

When I was a seminary student, we had the privilege of having Dr. Margaret Helder as a guest speaker. Having grown up in Edmonton, Dr. Helder was not a stranger to me. She had occasionally been a guest speaker at our Christian school in Alberta. However, on this particular occasion at the Canadian Reformed Seminary in Hamilton, I heard her say something that I couldn’t recall having heard before. I don’t remember if it was part of her original presentation or in reply to a question, but she pointed out that the so-called Big Bang and Genesis are incompatible. I don’t remember the exact reasons she gave as to why that was, but it sounded quite reasonable to me at the time and, since then, I’ve kept it in the back of my mind.

I thought about this again recently as I encountered a book which suggested that the Big Bang and Genesis are compatible. Gregory Koukl’s new book The Story of Reality is generally a recommended overview of the Christian worldview (a review will be appearing shortly on my blog Yinkahdinay). In chapter 7, Koukl is answering two objections to the Christian view of God as Creator. The second has to do with miracles. After all, creation is a miracle. He notes that all scientists “pretty much agree that the universe had a beginning.” That beginning was the Big Bang where “all things exploded into existence in a fraction of an instant.” Then he says this (page 51):

I know the Big Bang idea is controversial with some Christians, but I think that’s because they haven’t realized how well it fits the Story [the Christian worldview laid out in the Bible], which basically says the same thing.

So according to Koukl, the Big Bang fits with Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Reading this gave me occasion to look a little more into this and refresh my memory as to why Dr. Helder had told a group of seminary students and professors otherwise.

I found this article on creation.com to be especially helpful: The Big Bang is not a Reason to Believe. If you don’t have the time or inclination to read the whole article, this chart about sums it up — each flash on this chart represents a conflict between the chronology of Genesis 1-2 and Big Bang cosmology:

Does the Big Bang really fit the story that well? Perhaps if you define “Big Bang” in some way that doesn’t reflect how it’s really being used in astrophysics. Maybe that’s what Koukl has done. Or perhaps if you insist that Genesis 1-2 don’t give us a chronologically accurate, historic account of the origins of the universe. Of course, that second option could find you up against Jesus Christ, who clearly taught that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning (Matthew 19:4). No, I still think that Dr. Helder was right. There’s no reconciling the Big Bang and God’s Word.

Operational vs. historical science

November 29, 2016April 9, 2022Jon Dykstra

Evolution is just a theory.
Then again, so is gravity.
– as seen on a t-shirt.

Is the theory of evolution like the theory of gravity? How are they different? This is just one of the topics that professors John Byl and Tom Goss cover in their book, How Should Christians Approach Origins? In this excerpt they note that there are two very different sorts of science happening here.

*****

It is sometimes argued that it is inconsistent to use modern medicine and technology origins while rejecting evolution, since both are products of mainstream science. However, we must be careful to distinguish between two types of science: operational science and historical science.

OPERATIONAL SCIENCE is the experimental science done in the lab or in the field. It investigates repeatable events in the present. This concerns most of physics, chemistry, and biology, as well as observational geology, astronomy, and the like. It gives us all the science needed for technology, such as in developing smartphones, satellites, cars, planes, cures for diseases, and so on. It studies the present material reality and how it normally functions.
HISTORICAL SCIENCE, on the other hand, is concerned with extrapolating from present observations to the distant, unobserved, and unrepeatable past. This includes various theories and explanations in archaeology, cosmology, historical geology, paleontology, biological evolutionary development, and so on.

These two types of science differ significantly:

Operational science aims to discover the universal laws by which nature generally operates, whereas historical science aims to establish ancient conditions or past causes. Operational science explains present events by reference to general laws, whereas historical science explains present events in terms of presumed past events.
Operational science calculates forward, deducing effects from causes, whereas historical science calculates backwards, inferring past causes from present clues. One problem here is that more than one possible historical cause can give rise to the same effect. For example, in a murder trial, the prosecution and defense may present very different historical scenarios to explain the material evidence.
Operational science assumes methodological naturalism. Since it is concerned with what normally happens, in the absence of miracles, it is reasonable to consider only natural causes. Historical science, on the other hand, seeks to find what actually happened in the past. Constraining ourselves to natural causes amounts to metaphysical naturalism – the further assumption that no miracles have in fact happened in the past.¹

The well-known evolutionist Ernst Mayr acknowledged,

Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science – the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.²

In short, the scientific know-how needed to make smartphones is much better established than, say, the claim that humans evolved from [some chimp-like creature].

End notes
¹ Stephen Meyer, Signature in the Cell (New York: NY, HarperCollins, 2009), 150–172.
² Ernst Mayr, “Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought.” Scientific American, November 24, 2009 (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/darwins-influence-on-modern-thought/).

This excerpt reprint with permission. How Should Christians Approach Origins? can be purchased at Amazon.ca. Inquiries about bulk pricing can be directed to Tom Goss at tgoss@rogers.com

Keller on Creation, now in Dutch

November 8, 2016April 9, 2022Jon Dykstra

For our Dutch readers, they’ll want to know that Dr. Ted Van Raalte’s four posts earlier this year about Tim Keller’s views on Creation, has been translated into Dutch. You can find it the original four posts in English here:

And the Dutch translation, which compiles all the posts can be found here:

http://logos.nl/tegenwerpingen-tegen-een-pleidooi-uit-klassiek-gereformeerde-hoek-voor-evolutie/

Brief Review: Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels

October 31, 2016November 8, 2016Rev. Jim Witteveen

eah Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels
Creation Book Publishers, 2014
Edited by Robert Carter
Price $18.00

Several months ago, Jon Dykstra reviewed the documentary that was developed in conjunction with the book Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels. I recently had the opportunity to attend a presentation by Richard Fangrad, CEO of Creation Ministries International’s Canadian branch. There was a book table at the event (which is always a draw for me), and this was one of many very worthwhile resources on offer. In his review, Jon gave the documentary a 10/10 rating, and I can only concur that the book is every bit as valuable in its own way as the documentary is.

There are eight “fatal flaws” to the theory of evolution that are addressed in depth by nine Ph.D. Scientists, including Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Dr. Emil Silvestru, and others. As in the documentary video, the flaws dealt with are:

Natural selection
Genetics and DNA
The origin of life
The fossil record
The geologic record
Radiometric dating
Cosmology
Ethics and morality

In his foreword, Dr. Carl Wieland reminds us that the issue of origins is predicated on interpretation of the available evidence, and not on the evidence itself. His insights on this issue are important and worth citing:

“This whole controversy, incidentally, has never been about unearthing ‘facts for creation’ vs ‘facts for evolution’. When it comes to matters of history (as opposed to experimental or operational science, the science that concerns itself with how the world works), the issue has never been the facts so much as their interpretation. We all have the same world – the same ‘facts’… And philosophers of science have long reminded us… that raw, uninterpreted facts never speak for themselves. As the late Harvard professor, Stephen Jay Gould, once wrote, ‘Facts do not “speak for themselves”; they are read in the light of theory.’”

The nine scientists who contributed to this book begin with the following presuppositional framework, in the words of Dr. Wieland: “the straightforward truth of the Bible, in particular the Genesis record, affirmed and taught by the Lord Jesus Christ and authenticated by His rising from the dead.” This starting point, even more than the PhD’s piled up behind the names of the authors of this volume, makes Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels a very worthwhile resource.

This is particularly true for Christian students who will certainly have to wrestle with these issues as they prepare to engage in post-secondary science studies, and deal with them on a foundational level, not merely on an issue-by-issue basis. Given the often technical content of the eight chapters in this book, the material is well-presented, neatly laid-out, and accompanied by a number of helpful graphs, charts, and illustrations. Highly recommended without reservation!