Creationism - National Center for Science Education
Creationism - National Center for Science Education Creationism - National Center for Science Education
life is impossible without prior Plan, and that random systems cannot by themselves produce Design. He insists that the Argument from Design has “never been adequately refuted.” In The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution, Wilder-Smith develops his computer-age design argument at considerable length. Computers, he says, have decisively refuted the theory of the random origin of life. Knowledge of cybernetics allows us to dispose of the anthropomorphic concept of God and view Him as Intelligence. The DNA code upon which life is based is more than a mere pattern: it is an actual script for life. Such an information code proves supernatural Creation. Wilder- Smith says that “hindrances to accepting the postulate of an exogenous intelligence to account for nature’s coding have been finally and completely overcome by quite recent advances in cybernetic science” (1970:161). Chance cannot program information. In another book, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, Wilder-Smith expands on this idea. Evolution is thus basically an attempt to explain the origin of life from matter and energy without the aid of know-how, concept, teleonomy, or exogenous information. It represents an attempt to explain the formation of the genetic code from the chemical components of DNA without the aid of a genetic concept (information) originating outside the molecules of the chromosomes. This is comparable to the assumption that the text of a book originates from the paper molecules on which the sentences appear, and not from any external source of information... [1981:4] “Thus,” Wilder-Smith concludes triumphantly, “it is impossible for matter to have organized itself without the aid of energy and of teleonomic machines!” Paleontology gives no evidence that evolution has occurred, as Wilder-Smith demonstrates in some detail; more importantly, information theory proves positively that it cannot occur. No laboratory experiment could ever demonstrate the plausibility of a naturalistic origin of life, he argues, because the scientist always adds energy and some of this all-important “know-how”—information, concept, teleonomy, Logos—to the experiment. Such experiments do not duplicate “natural” conditions. Because of this added “know-how,” scientists have been “successful in their attempts to create artificial life.” Since the vital “know-how” was added, these experiments do not prove life could have arisen naturally; quite the contrary, they prove that exogenous Intelligence is necessary to create it. Darwin, when he formulated his theories of the origin of life one hundred years ago [sic—Darwin wrote about the evolution of life from previous species, not the origin of life itself], had no knowledge of either the laws of thermodynamics (they were just being worked out by Clausius, Clapeyron, and Kelvin at that time), or the laws of heredity (Mendel’s laws were unknown to him, though they were published in Darwin’s lifetime). Darwin in his day could therefore assume with impunity that order did arise spontaneously from chaos, that life did arise spontaneously. Today, in the light of scientific discovery, we can no longer do this. [Wilder-Smith, quoted by Ingram 1968:6] Creationists are so utterly convinced by the Design Argument that they use it unblinkingly in ways that seem paradoxical to non-creationists. Many of the marvelous adaptations seen in nature work to the detriment of other species—especially carnivorous and parasitic adaptations. Such exquisitely designed evil (for creationists consider it such) refutes evolution as convincingly as beneficent design. Most creationists do not see this as a paradox. They rationalize it by explaining that this evil is the result of the Fall:
disease, death, and decay all originated with the introduction of sin by Adam. Or, that evil design is Satan’s design—a perversion of God’s created design. The ichneumon wasp is a classic example of such apparently “evil” design. As Stephen Jay Gould has pointed out (1983), the ichneumons presented a glaring challenge to natural theology throughout the nineteenth century, being a particularly acute example of the “problem of evil.” The ichneumons were described by many natural theologians and naturalists of the time, notably Jean Henri Fabre, the great French entomologist and confirmed creationist. The female ichneumon wasp (there are thousands of species) lays eggs either on or inside captured, living caterpillars, spiders, or other insects; these hosts then serve as food for ichneumon larvae. Some species lay eggs on top of caterpillars which are carefully paralyzed to keep them alive for food but unable to move away from the larvae which proceed to slowly devour their food supply. The larvae leave the heart and other essential organs til last to keep them alive as long as possible. Some larvae species even suspend themselves above partially paralyzed hosts so as to be able to avoid their thrashing, carefully descending to eat during safer moments. The earlier creationists had two general responses, according to Gould: they described in anthropomorphic detail the protracted agony of the prey, or they emphasized the “maternal” care of the ichneumon in so elaborately and efficiently providing for its larvae. The second response also includes the familiar creationist invocation of Design as proof of Creation. Theodore Graebner, for instance, used the example of the ichneumon wasp, complete with picture, in his Essays on Evolution as evidence of instinctive behavior so complex as to decisively refute evolution (1925:42). Televangelist George Vandeman presents the example of the potter wasp, an ichneumon whose larvae are suspended by threads above the partially paralyzed caterpillars, as proof of creationism, along with other examples of Design. Vandeman quotes an unnamed source: Certainly the potter wasp’s strange behavior has to leave evolutionary theory hanging in midair along with its offspring. And maybe it’s trying to tell us something about a Creator who obviously has a lot of architectural expertise along with a pretty ingenious imagination. [Vandeman 1978:83-4] George O’Toole also described the exquisitely adapted instinct of these wasps, which could not have evolved gradually, in The Case Against Evolution (1926:264-265). More recently, an ichneumon wasp was featured on the cover of the Creation Research Society Quarterly (1974: 11(4)) as an example of design. A partial exception to the usual creationist treatment of design comes from Bolton Davidheiser. Davidheiser, a trained zoologist, cites examples of design (including the ichneumon wasp), but also provides many examples of imperfect biological adaptations in his Evolution and Christian Faith (1969:194-7), arguing that these traits would not be produced by natural selection. To Davidheiser this is evidence against the sufficiency of evolution, since, he says, natural selection would not allow for the survival of such imperfections, but Davidheiser’s argument runs counter to the standard creationist appeals to benevolent and perfect design in nature.
- Page 79 and 80: space technology, and a member of t
- Page 81 and 82: California Public Schools (Segraves
- Page 83 and 84: Henry Morris had a successful caree
- Page 85 and 86: the protestors objected to, but the
- Page 87 and 88: and creationist thought. Interestin
- Page 89 and 90: Lubenow and said, “You’re a Chr
- Page 91 and 92: Among the attendees at the Summer I
- Page 93 and 94: educes his bigoted evolutionist pro
- Page 95 and 96: CHAPTER 4 THEORETICAL ISSUES: SCIEN
- Page 97 and 98: eality, nor is it intended to be. (
- Page 99 and 100: Assuming that present-day scientifi
- Page 101 and 102: devotes much of his book to the mor
- Page 103 and 104: Hitchcock. Their completely unfound
- Page 105 and 106: in the series did. Rev. Henry Beach
- Page 107 and 108: Materialism and Evolution (1932) is
- Page 109 and 110: (1984), he says: “The Bible is in
- Page 111 and 112: Faith, he says, is not dependent on
- Page 113 and 114: “Each creation command in Genesis
- Page 115 and 116: lawful process. This “lawful” o
- Page 117 and 118: used Gillespie’s argument to argu
- Page 119 and 120: The Bible, says Van Til, as God’s
- Page 121 and 122: make it conform to this straightfor
- Page 123 and 124: If the Bible and Christ and Christi
- Page 125 and 126: Jesus was either a “lunatic or th
- Page 127 and 128: EVOLUTION AS MAN’S ESCAPE FROM GO
- Page 129: Design, according to fundamentalist
- Page 133 and 134: “If God had not given each specie
- Page 135 and 136: In a book on astronomy, John Whitco
- Page 137 and 138: Pentecostalists typically affirm be
- Page 139 and 140: member. In the 1920s, Aimee Semple
- Page 141 and 142: James Kennedy, pastor of Coral Ridg
- Page 143 and 144: ook, calling it ‘a fairy tale,’
- Page 145 and 146: In the second half of his book O’
- Page 147 and 148: any species from another species. I
- Page 149 and 150: never heard of Marra before, but I
- Page 151 and 152: accuse him, as already noted, of fo
- Page 153 and 154: Jay Sekulow is a lawyer who represe
- Page 155 and 156: to “internal” evidence, Islamic
- Page 157 and 158: What initially strikes the reader c
- Page 159 and 160: Journal of the Victoria Institute,
- Page 161 and 162: (all of ICR and/or CRS), and Malcol
- Page 163 and 164: Creationism in South Africa is infl
- Page 165 and 166: also includes other Bible-science i
- Page 167 and 168: oard of advisors includes Gunther S
- Page 169 and 170: Evolution on Trial (1985), one of s
- Page 171 and 172: sponsored by UCLA, and partly funde
- Page 173 and 174: Christianity, then emigrated to Can
- Page 175 and 176: R.G. Elmendorf, the whimsical Catho
- Page 177 and 178: YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISM CHAPTER 6 D
- Page 179 and 180: attacking evolution. Of the three,
disease, death, and decay all originated with the introduction of sin by Adam. Or, that<br />
evil design is Satan’s design—a perversion of God’s created design.<br />
The ichneumon wasp is a classic example of such apparently “evil” design. As<br />
Stephen Jay Gould has pointed out (1983), the ichneumons presented a glaring challenge<br />
to natural theology throughout the nineteenth century, being a particularly acute example<br />
of the “problem of evil.” The ichneumons were described by many natural theologians<br />
and naturalists of the time, notably Jean Henri Fabre, the great French entomologist and<br />
confirmed creationist. The female ichneumon wasp (there are thousands of species) lays<br />
eggs either on or inside captured, living caterpillars, spiders, or other insects; these hosts<br />
then serve as food <strong>for</strong> ichneumon larvae. Some species lay eggs on top of caterpillars<br />
which are carefully paralyzed to keep them alive <strong>for</strong> food but unable to move away from<br />
the larvae which proceed to slowly devour their food supply. The larvae leave the heart<br />
and other essential organs til last to keep them alive as long as possible. Some larvae<br />
species even suspend themselves above partially paralyzed hosts so as to be able to avoid<br />
their thrashing, carefully descending to eat during safer moments.<br />
The earlier creationists had two general responses, according to Gould: they<br />
described in anthropomorphic detail the protracted agony of the prey, or they emphasized<br />
the “maternal” care of the ichneumon in so elaborately and efficiently providing <strong>for</strong> its<br />
larvae. The second response also includes the familiar creationist invocation of Design as<br />
proof of Creation. Theodore Graebner, <strong>for</strong> instance, used the example of the ichneumon<br />
wasp, complete with picture, in his Essays on Evolution as evidence of instinctive<br />
behavior so complex as to decisively refute evolution (1925:42). Televangelist George<br />
Vandeman presents the example of the potter wasp, an ichneumon whose larvae are<br />
suspended by threads above the partially paralyzed caterpillars, as proof of creationism,<br />
along with other examples of Design. Vandeman quotes an unnamed source:<br />
Certainly the potter wasp’s strange behavior has to leave evolutionary theory hanging in midair along with<br />
its offspring. And maybe it’s trying to tell us something about a Creator who obviously has a lot of<br />
architectural expertise along with a pretty ingenious imagination. [Vandeman 1978:83-4]<br />
George O’Toole also described the exquisitely adapted instinct of these wasps,<br />
which could not have evolved gradually, in The Case Against Evolution (1926:264-265).<br />
More recently, an ichneumon wasp was featured on the cover of the Creation Research<br />
Society Quarterly (1974: 11(4)) as an example of design.<br />
A partial exception to the usual creationist treatment of design comes from Bolton<br />
Davidheiser. Davidheiser, a trained zoologist, cites examples of design (including the<br />
ichneumon wasp), but also provides many examples of imperfect biological adaptations<br />
in his Evolution and Christian Faith (1969:194-7), arguing that these traits would not be<br />
produced by natural selection. To Davidheiser this is evidence against the sufficiency of<br />
evolution, since, he says, natural selection would not allow <strong>for</strong> the survival of such<br />
imperfections, but Davidheiser’s argument runs counter to the standard creationist<br />
appeals to benevolent and perfect design in nature.