Creationism - National Center for Science Education

Creationism - National Center for Science Education Creationism - National Center for Science Education

25.07.2013 Views

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.

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.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!