Feathers: The Evolution of a Natural Miracle explores the details of feathers and why they are so amazing. The book is filled with interesting facts about all the different kinds of feathers (Example: most birds have between 1 and 25 thousand, but only a few dozen flight feathers), but it is mostly focused on exploring the incredibly lightweight, watertight, insulated, beautifully-colored, multi-functional natural wonder that even evolutionary scientists call a “miracle.”
Interesting Info on Feather Design
“Feathers are unbelievable,” Feduccia said, and his voice took on a tone of wonder I would hear again and again… “They have all of these incredible aerodynamic features – lightweight, with graded flexibility; they’re perfect airfoils; they can work together in slotted wings with high lift at low speeds.
Feathers cluster “in well-defined tracts,” which “offers two advantages: It distributes plumage across the entire body while allowing skin between the tracts to remain relatively bare” for “regulating body temperature.” They “may also play a role in how feathers move, helping to concentrate the relevant muscles in discrete lines… Each follicle is surrounded by strong muscles and nerves that give birds surprising agility with individual feathers. They can fluff them for warmth, lift them for preening or display, and even make fine adjustments during flight to maximize aerodynamic efficiency… Coordinating such movements is quite an engineering feat. It would be like a person straightening their part with a thought, twitching individual ear hairs, or accurately judging wind speed from the play of a breeze across their eyebrows.”
“Engineers call feathers the most insulating material ever discovered.” Tiny birds, while operating at a body temperature several degrees higher than ours, can maintain a “difference between the outdoor air temperature… as large as an astonishing 140 degrees Fahrenheit.” The complex layers of barbs and barbules can can efficiently trap a large amount of air molecules “as a barrier.” “With their intricate air-trapping microstructure, down feathers are the most naturally insulative material on earth, and birds have the ability to fluff them up manually, essentially adjusting their R-value at will.” The lightness of this material allows birds to fly. Birds and even other animals will scavenge stray feathers to insulate nests and burrows.
Different kinds of feathers are created by “varying the location and timing of keratin production at the follicle collar… To accomplish these feats, the follicle’s cells must act in perfect concert, a symphony of starts and stops that is controlled by a particular gene” (the Sonic Hedgehog hox gene). Human industry has yet to create a synthetic material that matches the insulation power with the same lightness and durability: “Feathers grow that way naturally, but manufacturing such finely branched filaments is extremely difficult.” (These downy feathers, however, are not waterproof, and require a covering of watertight contour feathers, and extra parental care for downy young until they grow that outer layer. This presents an evolutionary challenge, as described below.)
Feathers keep birds from freezing by being so insulative, but it’s just as amazing that they don’t make birds overheat. “When a bird takes flight, it suddenly finds itself producing seven, ten or even twenty times the body heat it had while perched.” Since they already operate “within a few degrees of the point at which proteins in living cells break down faster than the body can replace them,” temperature regulation is crucial, and involves adjusting feather positions and increasing blood flow to bare portions (apteria). Additionally, a bird’s “complex system of nine or more air sacs to supplement their lungs,” which “increases the efficiency” to allow flying, also “dramatically expands the surface area available for internal evaporation,” releasing extra heat through the mouth by panting.
On the “amazing” “flexibility” of feathers for real-time flight adjustments: A falcon “dove after a lure… accelerating up to 157 miles per hour before neatly catching it and pulling up,” experiencing a calculated gravitational force of “twenty-seven Gs“! (“Fighter pilots risk losing consciousness at anything over nine.”) Other examples of “airflow management” include reducing drag to increase flight efficiency. “Vultures, eagles, and other soaring birds use small adjustments of their spread wing-tip ‘fingers’ to manipulate air currents or change speed and orientation, and all birds utilize feather movements to instinctively alter the turbulence patterns around their wings. Slots can be opened or closed to direct air… covert feathers can be raised or lowered like tiny flags.” (No wonder aircraft engineers study birds to find ways to increase gas mileage!)
“Owl feathers feature barb extensions” that not only increase efficiency but also “muffl[e] the sound of their approach” – except for the Scops Fishing Owl, which hunts prey underwater and doesn’t need the stealth factor!
The watertightness of outer/contour feathers is not fully understood but seems to involve a high number of “touch points,” and “air pockets” between them, that repel water molecules. “Considering their light weight, flexibility, and thinness, feathers offer one of nature’s most versatile and efficient waterproofing membranes.” There are also beautiful adaptations: Diving cormorants have a slight structure modification that allows their “outer feathers” to get soaked, which adjusts their buoyancy as they dive for fish, “while still keeping their skin and down feathers sealed inside a watertight blanket.” At the other end of the spectrum in the dry desert, the sandgrouse has a different feather structure that absorbs so much water that birds have been observed “methodically soaking their chests” in pools to allow “thirsty chicks… to eagerly drink at Papa’s breast, sucking water straight from his feathers.”
While many birds “snap” their wings in “percussive notes” for mating rituals, the club-winged manakin takes it to another level with the “odd shape” of its feather wings: “This rapid vibration brought the wings together repeatedly, striking the enlarged clublike secondaries together in a way that forced the bent one to saw back and forth across a row of tiny ridges on the adjacent shaft… Each wing was indeed acting as a tiny violin, with the bent feather tip serving as the pick or bow, the ridges as strings, and the swollen, hollow feather shafts as the resonating chamber, amplifying and sustaining the tone.” (This was not understood until the relatively recent “breakthrough” of “high-speed video.”)
Birds regularly replace their feathers through molting, which is needed to maintain function after wear-and-tear and also to try to help manage the ubiquitous issue of bird lice. Sometimes molting changes colors that correlate with the mating season.
Interesting Theories on Feather Evolution
Hanson describes the old scales-to-feather hypothesis that never had any evidence and the new Stage I to V theory that seems to at least have some evidence for it from evolutionary development. Hanson describes Archaeopertyx as well as the recently uncovered feathered dinosaur fossils, but he notes the “temporal paradox,” highlighted by minority BAND scientists (Birds Are Not Dinosaurs), that the earlier stages are in all the later-dated fossils, while Archaeopteryx’s much older feathers are the asymmetrical flight feathers, thought to be the last stage to evolve. Hanson seems to suggest that the discovery of the even-earlier Anchiornis resolved this paradox, because the bird had some lower-stage feathers, but since it also had the flight feathers, we still seem to have a curious sudden appearance of those. (There is also evidence that Archaeopteryx molted, suggesting the function has been around about as long as feathers themselves.)
On the evolution of theropod dinosaurs into birds, Hanson describes some evidence for the current consensus but also notes the dissenting views of Alan Feduccia, a self-described “old-school Darwinian” who thinks birds came from a different ancestor. On the Stage theory of feather evolution, he “questions the usefulness of Prum’s downlike Stage II feathers,” which “lose most of its insulative value when wet… Young ostriches caught out in the rain often die of exposure, even in the African heat. In Prum’s model, however, contour feathers evolved after downy plumes.” Feduccia also thinks the “host of similar traits” between birds and theropods “came about” through “convergent evolution,” which points to the curious flexibility of one person’s homology to be another’s convergent evolution.
A simpler example of convergent evolution: Carrion birds lack feathers on their heads, which seems to keep them from getting blood and guts stuck to their heads as they plunge them into their carcass meals. “For carrion birds, the loss of feathers is such a good idea that it has evolved at least twice, in different places, in totally different groups of species… The New World and Old World vultures are not related; their likeness evolved from the practicalities of their grisly diet.”
(In an unrelated example, the book notes the “more than two dozen independent and unrelated times membranes [flaps of skin] evolved for vertebrate gliding and flight” in non-birds.)
The current consensus for the evolution of bird flight involves Wing Assisted Incline Running by climbing steep slopes or trees, a hypothesis that is a sort of hybrid between the ground-up and tree-down hypotheses, which both had inconvenient difficulties.
On the development of flight with cooling mechanisms: “Innovation in nature often occurs at stress points, places where competing adaptive pressures create an evolutionary dilemma… powered flight and specialized cooling mechanisms developed in tandem.” If “dinosaurs were warm-blooded creatures, then the basics of avian cooling must have already been in place in theropods… the result is a complex system of feather manipulation, controlled blood flow, and evaporative cooling that allows most birds to dispel far more heat than they produce, even while flying on a warm day.”
Challenges to Evolution and Creation
I think the “sudden appearance” / “temporal paradox” of feathers in the fossil record, and the questionable usefulness of the increasing stages point to difficulties for theories of unguided, gradual development. A few examples of convergent evolution add a curious inconvenience. And many of the amazing features seem incredibly complex.
At the same time, I think these features also present challenges to young-earth creationism and its “perfect paradise paradigm.” While complex mating rituals would certainly fit the original commands to “be fruitful and multiply,” the clear adaptations for predator/prey relationships are more curious.
Did owls have barb extensions before the Fall if they didn’t hunt small mammals? Did vultures have bald heads? Did diving birds have adaptations to survive dozens of G forces and adjust their feather buoyancy if they didn’t eat underwater fish? And if the pre-Fall climate was globally lush, as some have conjectured, did the desert sandgrouse have its uniquely absorbent structure?
I suppose the observation that many feathers involve multiple functions would support an idea that these features could have existed with different, but still beautifully designed, functions (although multi-functionality also makes it easier to imagine gradual evolution of complex features).
However, provided the theologies are equally valid, such designs seem to me more naturally indicative of an old-earth creation or theistic evolution type of view, with animals surviving in harsh environments and predator/prey relationships with beautifully designed features that allow a variety of creatures to survive in a “very good” but not yet “perfect” world.
Regardless of how they got here, feathers are marvelous, and thanks to Thor Hanson’s book, I can appreciate their wonder just a little bit more.
Perry Marshall applies ideas from engineering and information theory to evolutionary biology with a twist that combines intelligent design and evolution. He touts under-appreciated advances in biology that reveal cells to be far cleverer than most people realize, arguing that the cell’s complexity was intelligently designed and that this complexity actually makes evolution possible!
Like Michael Behe, Marshall believes random mutations are utterly insufficient to explain the diversity of life, yet he still believes in the general principle of common ancestry and its compatibility with Christianity. However, unlike Behe, who vaguely resigns the history of life to “non-random” mutations, Marshall highlights the “natural genetic engineering” work of James Shapiro, Barbara McClintock, and others to define a paradigm shift he calls “Evolution 2.0.” Marshall describes a suite of tools that provide “adaptive” mutations where DNA changes, not by copying errors from one generation to the next, but through cells editing their own DNA according to pre-programmed rules to intelligently respond to new challenges in fascinating ways. Marshall argues that not only does Evolution 2.0 finally provide a plausible explanation for common ancestry, but it does so with a clear level of purpose that has far more positive religious implications than the typical – and in his opinion, totally unbelievable – Darwinian story of chance progress through unguided randomness.
The Five Blades
The five “blades” of a “Swiss army knife” are Marshall’s metaphor for the tools cells have to improve themselves with precision and purpose.
Transposition is when cells re-arrange parts of their DNA. Not only do these arrangements apparently follow specific rules of grammar and syntax (i.e. more akin to rearranging words or sentences in a paragraph than simply random letters), but they are triggered more often when they are needed:
“No sir,” replied Dr. Shapiro, “they’re not random at all. When bacteria are comfortable, some mutations cannot be found in over ten billion cells. But when they’re starving, the mutation frequency can go by a factor >100,000-fold and they develop new adaptations so they can survive.”
Horizontal gene transfer is when cells share DNA with each other, both within and across species, apparently according to specific syntax so cells know how to properly integrate the new code in a useful way. Marshall describes a bacterium learning to resist an antibiotic by finding another cell with code for “a pump that can purge the poison from its own system… The bacterium finds the portion of the DNA that codes fora pump, inserts the new code into its own DNA, and starts multiplying.” Apparently we are still advancing the extent of our knowledge on what kinds of creatures can transfer genes with each other. (Among other things, this severely complicates attempts to draw trees of life from DNA sequence similarities.)
Epigenetics involves the switching on and off of existing DNA, in response to changes in the environment, to essentially change which code functions actually run on an organism. In at least some cases these changes appear to be inheritable, in what Marshall calls “Lamarck’s Revenge.”
Symbiogenesis is the instant creation of new forms from the combination of different species. Mitochondria and chloroplasts in cells are classic examples, as is lichen, which I learned is really a combination of fungi and algae. Marshall also explains some fascinating empirical lab evidence for such “quantum leaps” from symbiogenesis:
Dr. Kwang Jeon… did an experiment where tens of thousands of bacteria took up residence inside Amoeba proteus organisms. A fierce parasitic attack ensued, killing almost all the amoeba. But in the space of a year, amoeba and bacteria entered into symbiosis. Both modified expression of their genes as necessary, to support the mutual dependence.
Joen learned how to reliably trigger symbiotic cell mergers between amoeba and bacteria. It took 20 generations, about 18 months, for the cells to become fully interdependent. After that, removal of either symbiotic partner proved fatal to both.
Marshall claims that “major classes of cells, plants, and animals are built from symbiotic mergers of multiple smaller organisms.” He notes the work of Dr. Lynn Margulis, who “argued that Symbiogensis is a primary driver of evolution.” Unlike Darwinian evolution, which “emphasizes competition as the primary force, Margulis focused on harmony and cooperation.”
Finally, whole genome duplication is when a rare non-sterile hybrid offspring of two species “inherits double chromosomes… The process of joining the two DNA strands together also, in rare matings, provokes rearrangements through Transposition. This sudden rearranging is called hybrid dysgenesis, and it can provoke sudden new and useful features its parents never had.” Marshall discusses clues that the genetic information for the first jawed vertebrate came from a doubled chromosome “in a single generation,” though this event likely “only created the conditions for the jaw to form some time later.”
Insights and Implications
Marshall’s fast-paced style jumps around with personal details about his brother’s loss of faith and his own journey of discovering parts of the science, with a variety to connections to Christianity and the Bible, and other implications and opinions. It’s easy-to-read and very accessible, but perhaps at the cost of diving deeper into the details about the “five blades.” He repeats “DNA is a code” over and over throughout the book without clearly (or at least, as clearly as I would have liked) demonstrating how, for instance, the encoding pattern is a choice that could have been different. That being said, Marshall provides numerous resources (via a well-designed bibliographic code, of course) for diving deeper into almost everything he covers, and the smorgasbord of content contains plenty of interesting insights throughout.
1. Marshall devotes one appendix to defending his harmonization of science and Genesis, highlighting similarities between the order of the creation account and the current scientific consensus. Whether you’re familiar with these lines of argument or not, there is much food for thought and some original thinking as well.
2. Marshall describes his engineering-based skepticism of the power of natural selection this way:
If natural selection explains how everything came to be, then how come it doesn’t teach you how to build anything?
If natural selection acting on random mutation is so elegantly powerful, why don’t programmers or businesses or really anybody create anything that way? He describes a general principle that “noise” always destroys data and argues for applying it to the genome, noting that when evolutionary biologists attempt to simulate random evolution via computer models, their best results look a lot more like “2.0” goal-seeking evolution than “random” mutation.
3. Marshall brings insight from his engineering background to the dismissive claims of poor design:
Is the body well designed or poorly designed? Skeptics often criticize the human body, presuming it’s an accumulation of chance accidents. They say things like, “The human eye is a pathetic design. It’s got a big, blind spot and the ‘wires’ are installed backward.”
…When I was a manufacturing production manager, I had to produce an indicator lamp assembly for a piece of equipment. The design had a light bulb and two identical resistors, which I thought were stupid… I learned the hard way that when you criticize a design, you may have a very incomplete picture of the many constraints the designer has to work within. Designs always have delicate tradeoffs… Sometimes you have to compromise between 15 competing priorities….
I am not saying there are no suboptimal designs in biology… But human beings must be very careful to not proudly assert that we could “obviously do better.” We don’t know that. We do not understand what’s involved in designing an eye because we’ve never built one.
4. More on the implications of “cooperation” rather than “competition”:
Nature is so often depicted as cruel and merciless in its bitter and unrelenting struggle. But when you actually spend time in nature… you witness fabulous, intricate interdependence. Grass keeps soil from eroding. Bees and flowers engage in a dance with each other… Big fish get their mouths cleaned by “cleaner fish”… Cooperation and symbiosis are so ever-present we tend to look right past them and only notice the competition.
5. Thoughts on common ancestry for humans:
Christians believe God became man, physically born of a human mother… If a human can be the Son of God by possessing the Spirit of God, then why can’t a primate become a human being by receiving a human spirit?
6. Marshall argues that Evolution 2.0 can actually teach us more about God and nature by revealing his skills as a designer, and letting us discover things that have enormous practical applications for designing and building responsive systems, from biology to business.
I believe in Evolution 2.0 because the God I believe in is more magnificent than previously believed. He doesn’t have to beam zebras from the sky onto the savanna. He designed a process that formed them from the dust of the ground and tailored them to their environment… God wants us to study all of what He has made… God is the Original Scientist, the Original Engineer. This opens huge vistas in medicine, genetics, computer science, and technology. You can’t learn how zebras are built from a miracle – but you can learn from a natural process… What if we understood God to be an engineer so skilled that he endows cells with the ability to engineer themselves?
On the one hand, Marshall’s book would appear to be a natural partnership with Behe: Behe argues that evolution is real, but random mutation is not a sufficient mechanism, and Marshall steps in to provide those mechanisms that Mivart was anticipating would be found way back in 1871. In fact, Marshall essentially makes this connection in a brief discussion of Behe’s first book Darwin’s Black Box. Yet on the other hand, there is a discrepancy, with Behe arguing in Edge of Evolutionthat Shapiro’s “natural genetic engineering” does not appear to have done anything for malaria in several decades despite intense selective pressure and more numbers of creatures than all the mammals that are thought to have ever existed!
I reached out to Marshall for his perspective on this. He replied that he planned to respond after additional research but offered an initial opinion that Behe was “singling out a very specific instance or example that may be overlooking a larger pattern or singling out particular facts that exclude others. And I think he’s drastically underestimating the capabilities of natural genetic engineering. He’s also being vague about how evolution actually does work.” (If Marshall has the opportunity to respond further I will update this post.)
Marshall rejects the dogma of both sides, yet not with a “boring” conventional “theistic evolution,” but with an exciting “2.0” intelligently-designed-evolution that will be fresh and even paradigm-shifting for many readers, though he insists much of this has been known for years within biology communities while being understandably under-appreciated and under-reported by the Darwinian and creationist dogmatists. Of course, Marshall ends up sounding rather dogmatic about his own newfound position (perhaps history will remember him as “Shapiro’s bulldog”), with critics claiming he invokes a host of processes without truly understanding how they work or what their limits may be. But regardless, Evolution 2.0 is an exciting introduction to a lot of interesting ideas with profound implications for creationists and evolutionists, Christians and atheists alike.
Michael Behe’s Edge of Evolution is a decade-later (2007) follow-up to his 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box, which described the “irreducible complexity” of certain biological structures and argued that Darwinian evolution could not produce them. In this book, Behe looks at the limits of what natural selection and random mutation can do, trying to define what he calls “the edge” of evolution.
Behe makes a careful distinction between the theory of common ancestry, which he believes and shares some evidence for, and the mechanism of random mutations acted on by natural selection (or, “Darwinian evolution”), which he argues is nowhere near powerful enough to account for the diversity of the creatures that share a common ancestry. He critiques scientists who present evidence of common ancestry as evidence of the power of random mutation.
Arms Race or Trench Warfare?
Behe looks at the best-touted examples of what Darwinian evolution can accomplish through the natural selection of random mutations, focusing on human resistance to malaria and malarial resistance to antibiotics. He argues that these “beneficial” single- or double-point mutations are really destructive: malaria hijacks machinery in human red blood cells to do its dirty work, and human mutations essentially break that machinery, sacrificing it as a loss for a net gain of stopping the malaria. Similarly, antibiotics hijack machinery in malaria cells to do their work, and malarial resistance essentially breaks that machinery in a similar sacrifice.
Far from an “arms race” of creatures developing new and complex machinery, Behe says these examples are actually the destructive consequences of a “trench warfare” where each side sustains damage to their own structures to prevent the attacker from taking advantage of them – like “burning a bridge” to block an invading army.
The “beneficial” mutations in malaria have not created new protein bindings, developed any new structures, or come up with any way to counter sickle-cell resistance, cooler temperatures, or other limitations. This explains why malaria has overcome many antibiotics within a few years but has not bested sickle-cell in centuries. “Darwinian evolution can deal quickly and easily with some problems, but slowly if at all with others.”
Since malaria multiplies to a trillion cells in a human host, and the number of malarial cells that exist each year (10^20) is more than the number of mammals that have ever existed, Behe argues we can compare the limited performance of malaria in the last few decades to the total performance of mammals over a hundred million years.
He argues it is not reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to come up with any benefit that requires more than two point mutations. Quoting Coyne and Orr, he says we have to consider not just what is theoretically possible but probable enough to be “biologically reasonable.”
Behe discusses the evolution of an anti-freeze protein in the notothenoid fish over a few million years, arguing that a possible step-by-step pathway to its development is simple and fundamentally different from developing more complex structures. It “underscores the limits of random mutation, rather than its potential.”
Rugged Fitness Landscape
Unlike an imaginary smooth hill that can be climbed, mutation by single mutation, he describes a “rugged fitness landscape” of mutation effects, with a chaotic mess of valleys and local maximums. He argues that evolution by random mutation is most likely to get stuck on local hills. “Random mutation and natural solution can’t solve the rugged landscape dilemma – they actually cause the dilemma.”
“The eminent geneticist Francois Jacob famously wrote that Darwinian evolution is a ‘tinkerer,’ not an engineer.”
Behe highlights recent biological discoveries to look not just at the final complex structures of living beings but at their marvelous ability to self-assemble their complex pieces. Proteins must have matching shapes and charges to bind together from a huge array of possible shape space, quoting biophysicist Sarah Woodson, “it is as though cars could be manufactured by merely tumbling their parts onto the factory floor.”
He discusses intraflagellar transport (IFT) and its role in cilia construction, how materials are gathered at the base of a cilium before construction, how a rotating filament cap guides flagellum pieces down a rod. Repressors and hox genes and pyramids of cascading circuit switches. Markers that identify different segments of a body for the other pieces to fill in the details.
Behe says the “likelihood of getting two new binding sites” requires “more cells than likely have existed on earth.” He looks at HIV, a virus with nine genes that has a much faster mutation rate than human or malaria cells. “Every possible single-point mutation occurs 10^4 [one thousand] times per day in an HIV-infected individual.” Every double-point mutation would occur in each person once each day. And yet HIV has produced no new protein bindings for the development of new machinery.
To the objection that we cannot extrapolate to billions of years from the performance of malaria or HIV in a short amount of time:
“Time is actually not the chief factor in evolution – population numbers are… Since for many kinds of organisms the mutation rate is pretty similar, the waiting time for the appearance of helpful mutations depends mostly on numbers of organisms… The numbers of malaria cells and HIV in just the past fifty years have probably greatly surpassed the number of mammals that have lived on the earth in the past several hundred million years… The fact that no new cellular protein-protein interactions were fashioned, that mutations were incoherent, that changes in only a few genes were able to help, and that those changes were only relatively (not absolutely) beneficial – all that gives us strong reason to expect the same for larger organisms over longer time.”
Thus Behe’s conclusion: “Most mutations that built the great structures of life must have been nonrandom.”
Natural genetic engineering
Behe briefly discusses other scientific theories of how “unintelligent forces may mimic intent,” such as James Shapiro’s “natural genetic engineering,” which focuses on how the cell contains “sophisticated tools” to manipulate its own genes, so “evolution doesn’t have to proceed in a Darwinian manner by tiny random changes.”
Behe says “in many ways Shapiro has a higher, more respectful view of the genome than Darwinists do… it’s like a computer that contains not only specific programs, but an entire operating system.” But since it doesn’t explain where those tools came from, “if anything, he is pointing the way to a possible mechanism for the unveiling of a designed process of common descent.”
On the other hand, “the fact that natural genetic engineering processes are indeed quite active… yet malaria and HIV have made no good use of them in 10^20 tries, strongly suggests they have very limited utility.”
Behe spends a few chapters of the latter half of the book exploring some of the implications of his ideas and their connections to areas from science to theology. Among other things, he makes some good philosophical rebuttals to multi-verse explanations for the fine-tuned universe.
On matters of public health: “Darwin counsels despair. A consistent Darwinist must think that random mutation will get around any antibiotic eventually – after all, look at all that magnificent molecular machinery it built.. But intelligent design says there’s always real hope. If we can find the right monkeywrench, just one degree more difficult to oppose than chloroquine, it could be a showstopper.”
Oxford mathematics professor John Lennox offers his thoughts on the relationship between Genesis and science in the short but insightful book, Seven Days That Divide The World. Lennox notes various historical approaches to Scriptural interpretation, comparing the current “young-earth/old-earth” divide to the “fixed-earth/moving-earth” controversy of centuries past. Lennox argues that Scripture allows for an old-earth interpretation involving sophisticated, meaningful metaphors, but he also argues the Scripture indicates the special distinct creation of man, not seeming to allow for the common ancestry of humans and animals. He also offers thoughts on the Bible’s and science’s “convergence” on the non-eternity of the universe, and the significance of “non-material” information in universal constants and the human genome as pointing to a “non-material” Creator.
Some of the quotes below are introductory references to ideas that are presented with more fully-developed claims in the full text of the book.
On Interpreting the Bible, and specifically the first chapters of Genesis
“What we think the natural meaning is may not have been the natural meaning for those to whom the text was originally addressed.” “”We cannot simply read it as if it were a contemporary Western document written to address contemporary Western concerns.”
“There are two extremes to be avoided. The first is the danger of tying interpretation of Scripture too closely to the science of the day… The opposite danger is to ignore science.”
“For many years, if not centuries, there would have been two major polarised positions: the fixed-earthers and the moving-earthers… These positions were held.. by those who were convinced that the Bible was the inspired Word of God and who regarded it as the full and final authority.” They agreed “on the core elements of the gospel… They disagreed, however, on what Scripture taught about the motion of the earth.”
“We cannot keep science and Scripture completely separate… the Bible talks about some of the things that science talks about… However, saying Scripture has scientific implications does not mean that the Bible is a scientific treatise from which we can deduce Newton’s laws… We are encouraged… to find out many things for ourselves.” Psalm 111:2, “The works of the Lord are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein.” “God loves an enquiring mind…”
“If the Biblical explanation” of the beginning of the universe “were at the level, say, of twenty-second-century science, it would likely be unintelligible to everyone, including scientists today… One of the most remarkable things about Genesis is that it is accessible to, and has a message for, everyone, whether or not they are scientifically literate.”
“Just because a sentence contains a metaphor, it doesn’t mean that it is not referring to something real.”
“We know now that the earth does not rest on literal foundations or pillars... the words “foundations” and “pillars” are used in a metaphorical sense. However.. the metaphors stand for realities. God the Creator has built certain very real stabilities into the planetary system that will guarantee its existence so long as is necessary to fulfill his purposes. Science has been able to show us that the earth is stable in its orbit over long periods of time, thanks in part to the obedience of gravity to an inverse square law, to the presence of the moon, which stabilizes the tilt of earth’s axis, and to the existence of the giant planet Jupiter, which helps keep the other planets in the same orbital plane. Earth’s stability, therefore, is very real… Even though our interpretation relies on scientific knowledge, it does not compromise the authority of Scripture… Scripture has the primary authority. Experience and science have helped decide between the possible interpretations that Scripture allows.”
“What we learn from this is that it is just not adequate to choose an interpretation simply on the basis of asking how many people held this interpretation, and for how long”
“We should be humble enough to distinguish between what the Bible says and our interpretations of it. The Biblical text might just be more sophisticated than we first imagined.”
On historical interpretations of the creation account
“The understanding of the days of Genesis as twenty-four-hour days seems to have been the dominant view for many centuries,” but certainly not the only one:
“Philo (10BC-AD 50) … thought creation was the act of a moment, and the Genesis record had more to do with principles of order and arrangement”
“Justin Martyr.. and Irenaeus… suggested the days might have been long epochs on the basis of Psalm 90:4 (“For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past”) and 2 Peter 3:8 (“With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”). Iranaeus applied this reading of Genesis to the warning God gave regarding the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (“In the day that you eat of it you shall surely die”) Since Adam lived on to 930 years, “He (Adam) did not overstep the thousand years, but died within their limit.”
Augustine: “As for these days, it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think, let alone explain in words, what they mean… But at least know that it is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar.” Augustine held that God had created everything in a moment, and that the days represented a logical sequence to explain it to us.
“Origen… pointed out that in the Genesis account the sun was not made until the fourth day… “Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first, the second, and the third day, and the evening and morning existed without the sun, moon, and stars?”
“The word “day” makes no obvious sense in the absence of the sun and the earth’s rotation relative to it… Some have postulated the existence of a nonsolar light source that functioned for the first three days. However… we know nothing about such a light source, either from Scripture or from science. The logical alternative is that the sun existed at the beginning of the Genesis week… One suggestion is that on day 4 the sun, moon, and stars appeared as distinguishable lights in the sky when the cloud cover that had concealed them dissipated… “The verb ‘made’ in Genesis 1:16 does not specifically mean ‘create’… can also refer to ‘working on something that is already there’ or even ‘appointed'”… The verse is speaking about God appointing the role of the sun and moon in the cosmos.”
“In any case, the fact that some early church fathers had difficulties with interpreting the text should give us some comfort, make us more humble, and, in addition, show us that the difficulties are not all generated by modern science but arise from a serious attempt to understand the text itself.”
On the “days”
“The question of the age of the earth (and of the universe) is a separate question from the interpretation of the days… Logically possible to believe that the days of Genesis are twenty-four hour days (of one earth week) and to believe that the universe is very ancient… This has nothing to do with science. Rather, it has to do with what the text actually says.”
“Even though the Hebrew language does have a definite article (ha), it is not used in the original to qualify days one to five… it is used for days six and seven. A better translation, therefore, would be “day one, day two… day five, the sixth day, the seventh day” or “a first day, a second day … the sixth day, the seventh day.” Thus a “possibility” of “a sequence of six creation days… that might well have been separated by long periods of time.”
Does the work week pattern of Exodus 20 insist the creation week was identically structured? “There were not only similarities between God’s creation week and our work week, but also obvious differences. God’s week happened once; ours is repeated. God’s creative activity is different from ours; God does not need rest as we do… God’s week is a pattern for ours, but it is not identical.”
Human Beings: A Special Creation?
“Genesis does not deny what chemistry tells us – that all life has a material substrate of common elements… “let the earth sprout vegetation” … “let the earth bring forth living creatures” … “The Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” .. Therefore Genesis affirms that (human) life has a chemical base, but Genesis denies the reductionist addendum of the materialist – that life is nothing but chemistry… Genesis seems to be going out of its way to imply a direct special creation act…
“Let the earth bring forth living creatures… Let us make man… This surely deliberate repetition is a clear indicator that, according to Genesis, you cross neither the gulf between nonlife and life nor the gulf between animals and human beings by unguided natural processes.”
Regarding the attempt to find a helper among the animals: “It is interesting that the first lesson Adam was taught… is that he was fundamentally different from all other creatures.”
Unlike, for instance, “The Lord appeared to Abram” … “Genesis 1 and 2 are not talking about God revealing himself to humans that already existed, but rather explaining how those human beings came to exist in the first place.” … “There was no man to work the ground” alongside suggestions that “there were millions of Neolithic farmers in existence at the time.”
Death Before the Fall
“Paul… says that death passed upon all human beings as a result of Adam’s sin; he does not say that death passed upon all living things… We do not accuse the lion of sinning when it kills an antelope.”
Discussing the special features of carnivorous creatures: “The view that animal death did not exist before humans sinned makes the existence of predators problematic.”
“In light of the New Testament’s explicit statement “God alone has immortality” (1 Tim. 6:16) does it follow that Adam never had intrinsic immortality, but was dependent from the beginning on regular access to an external source of food (the Tree of Life) for continued existence?”
“What was the difference, exactly, between the inside and the outside of that garden?”
“Evil in the universe appears to antedate the sin of Adam and Eve… C. S. Lewis: “Man was not the first creature to rebel against the Creator… If there is such a power, as I myself believe, it may well have corrupted the animal creation before man appeared.”
“It is simply false to suggest, as some do, that the only alternative to young-earth creationism is to accept the Darwinian model.”
The Message of Genesis 1
“The Genesis account… is diametrically opposed to all idolatrous interpretations of the universe, whether of the ancient, pagan kind or the modern secular variety.”
“The Biblical teaching, that the earth was specifically designed as a home for human beings, fits well with what contemporary science tells us about the fine-tuning of the universe.”
“So, both Genesis and science say that the universe is geared to supporting human life. But Genesis says more. It says that you, as a human being, bear the image of God… The galaxies are unimaginably large compared with you. However, you know that they exist, but they don’t know that you exist.”
“The idea that the universe did not come to be without the input of information and energy from an intelligent source seems to me to have been amply confirmed by scientific discovery…. The language of mathematics has proved to be a powerful tool in describing how things work. Its codification of the laws of nature into short and elegant “words” consisting of symbols surely reflect the greater Word that is ultimately responsible for the physical structures of the universe.”
“Above and beyond that… we humans possess a “word” of mind-boggling length, the human genome.”
“In recent years information has come to be regarded as one of the fundamental concepts of science. One of the most intriguing things about it is that it is not physical. The information you are reading at the moment is carried on the physical medium of paper and ink. But the information itself is not material… The nonmateriality of information points to a nonmaterial source – a mind, the mind of God.”
On Literary Parallels To The Creation Account
“The impression given is of a text that is written in “exalted, semipoetical language”
“Similarities… have led some scholars to surmise that the Genesis account is derived from the Babylonian Enuma Elish… However, many scholars point out that the similarities mask much more significant differences… The God of Genesis is utterly distinct. He was not created by the universe, as were the pagan gods. It is the other way round… Furthermore, according to Genesis, human beings are created in the image of God as the pinnacle of His creation… According to the Enuma Elish, on the other hand, human beings are created as an afterthought to lighten the work of the gods… Also, by contrast with the Mesopotamian myths, Genesis has no multiplicity of warring gods and goddesses; the heavens and earth are not made out of a god… there are no deifications of stars, planets, sun, and moon – the usual names of the last two are not even used in Genesis 1.”
“It is frequently asserted that the text of Genesis is theological and literary, as distinct from historical or scientific… It is, however, perfectly possible for a text simultaneously to inform us about objective facts and to have a theological purpose.”
On Scientific Parallels To The Creation Account
Quoting “English philosopher and historian Edwyn Bevan” discussion of the Genesis days’ parallels to the scientific story of an ocean covered in thick clouds followed by emerging land followed by plant life followed by animals followed by humans: “The stages by which the earth comes to be what it is cannot be precisely fitted into the account which modern science would give of the process, but in principle they seem to anticipate the modern scientific account by a remarkable flash of inspiration…”
Andrew Parker, Research Director at the Natural History Museum in London, “The opening page of Genesis is scientifically accurate but was written long before the science was known.”
On the universe having a beginning: “What is striking is that the Bible claimed it for thousands of years, whereas scientists only recently began even to entertain the possibility that there might have been a beginning.”
From physicist Sir John Houghton: “For human beings to exist, it can be argued that the whole universe is needed. It needs to be old enough (and therefore large enough) for one generation of stars to have evolved and died, to produce the heavy elements, and then for there to be enough time for a second-generation star like our sun to form with its system of planets…”
On Theistic Evolution / God of the Gaps / Miracles
“On the seventh day God rested. The work of creation was done. That would seem to imply that what went on during the creation sequence is no longer happening.”
Michael Behe argues that “natural selection and random mutation do something,” but their limit “can be transcended only if mutations are introduced that are nonrandom.” Simon Conway Morris “suggests that the uncanny ability of evolution to find its way through the space of all possible paths… is congruent with creation.”
On the risk of theists like himself resorting to “God of the gaps” arguments: “I see evidence of God everywhere… God is the God of the whole show…” But if the universe and earth came about as a result of the natural unfolding of fine-tuned conditions and natural laws, “Theistic evolution now asks why we should introduce a special supernatural act of creation at the point of the origin of life…. Of course, the issue is not whether or not God could have done it in a particular way… The question is, did God do it all in that way?”
“Most physicists seem to be able to live with the view that the origin of space-time is a singularity… It is part of the historic Christian faith that there have been other singularities in more recent history – preeminently the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus Christ… That being the case, I find it strange that some Christians seem to find a priori difficulty in the claim that there have been some additional singularities in the past, like the origin of life and the origin of human beings.”
Distinguishes between “miracles” that “stand out against the known regularities of the universe,” and a “supernatural” action to “set up the universe with its regularities.” “For in both Old and New Testaments, the Bible clearly distinguishes between God’s initial acts of creation on the one hand and his subsequent upholding of the universe on the other… Genesis 1 records a sequence of creation acts followed by God’s resting. “
“St. George Jackson Mivart PhD M.D. FRS (30 November 1827 – 1 April 1900) was an English biologist. He is famous for starting as an ardent believer in natural selection who later became one of its fiercest critics. Mivart attempted to reconcile Darwin’s theory of evolution with the beliefs of the Catholic Church, and finished by being condemned by both parties”(Wikipedia)
On The Genesis Of Species (Gutenberg link) is a fairly short work that criticizes the sufficiency of Darwinian “Natural Selection” to fully account for life. Mivart argued not for its rejection but for its “subordination” to a larger theory that sounds like some sort of theistic-evolutionary-punctuated-equilibrium. While he did not use many of the terms employed by many modern camps, he anticipated many of the arguments and frameworks still used today.
Chapter 1. Introductory
The first chapter defines “Natural Selection” as described by Darwin and Wallace. Mivart offers supportive remarks about its “remarkable” ability to explain limited variability among species [“microevolution”?] as well as critical remarks about the “peculiar difficulties” of its attempts to explain more general variety [“macroevolution”?].
“As error is almost always partial truth,” Mivart suggests that evolution and Christianity are not necessarily incompatible, criticizing those on both sides who “erect a doll utterly incapable of self-defence and then, with a flourish of trumpets and many vigorous strokes, overthrow the helpless dummy they had previously raised.” [i.e. straw man]
The succeeding chapters iterate through Mivart’s objections to the explanatory power of Natural Selection, touching on concepts such as irreducible complexity, convergent evolution, epigenetics, transitional fossils, homology, morality, and pangenesis.
Chapter 2.The Incompetency of “Natural Selection” To Account For The Incipient Stages of Useful Structures. [i.e. irreducible complexity]
“Natural Selection,” simply and by itself, is potent to explain the maintenance or the further extension and development of favourable variations, which are at once sufficiently considerable to be useful from the first to the individual possessing them. But Natural Selection utterly fails to account for the conservation and development of the minute and rudimentary beginnings, the slight and infinitesimal commencements of structures, however useful those structures may afterwards become.
“Some of the cases which have been brought forward” as examples of structures that would be useful in incipient stages “seem less satisfactory when carefully analysed.”
Mivart notes examples of “mimicry” where “some insects which imitate leaves extend the imitation even to the very injuries” of insect attacks or fungi, questioning “how the first faint beginnings” of such an imitation could develop.
Sea-urchins (Echinus) present us also with structures the origin of which it seems impossible to explain by the action of Natural Selection only… not even the sudden development of the snapping action could have been beneficial without the freely moveable stalk, nor could the latter have been efficient without the snapping jaws, yet no minute merely indefinite variations could simultaneously evolve these complex co-ordinations of structure.
“It may be objected, perhaps, that these difficulties are difficulties of ignorance [i.e. God of the gaps]…but… it is not that we merely fail to see how Natural Selection acted, but that there is a positive incompatibility between the cause assigned and the results… utterly insufficient to explain the incipient, infinitesimal beginnings of structures which are of utility only when they are considerably developed.”
Let us consider the mammary gland, or breast. Is it conceivable that the young of any animal was ever saved from destruction by accidentally sucking a drop of scarcely nutritious fluid from an accidentally hypertrophied cutaneous gland of its mother?
Mivart discusses “the mode of formation of both the eye and the ear of the highest animals.” The more “parts that co-operate,” the “more useless be any variation whatever unless it is accompanied by corresponding variations in the co-operating parts,” thus “the less will be the probability of their all occurring at once.”
Mivart considers the ear’s refined ability to perceive the beautiful tones of Beethoven and Mozart unexplainable by Natural Selection, since “it it can hardly be contended that the preservation of any race of men in the struggle for life ever depended on such an extreme delicacy and refinement of the internal ear.”
Chapter 3. The Co-Existence of Closely Similar Structures of Diverse Origin. [i.e. parallel/convergent evolution]
In this chapter Mivart discusses “striking likenesses between different animals, not due to inheritance.”
Mivart contends for the exceeding improbability of “exactly similar structures to have ever been independently developed,” since “the number of possible variations is indefinitely great, and it is therefore an indefinitely great” probability against “a similar series of variations occurring and being similarly preserved in any two independent instances.”
While this difficulty applies to “pure Darwinism” and its “indirect modifications,” “other theories” “admit the direct action of conditions upon animals and plants – in ways not yet fully understood.” “A peculiar but limited power of response” would explain similar variations taking place “not by merely haphazard, indefinite variations in all directions, but by the concurrence of some other and internal natural law or laws co-operating with external influences.” (Mivart returns to this “other” theory to answer every difficulty he raises, eventually fleshing his speculations out in more detail.)
Mivart lists many examples of what I believe is now called “convergent evolution,” such as the “resemblance between the anterior molars of the placental dog with those of the marsupial thylacine,” the “saltatory insectivores of Africa (Macroscelides)” which “not only resemble the kangaroo family (Macropodidæ) in their jumping habits and long hind legs” but also in their teeth, and distinct yet “homogenous” classes of birds alleged to have a “double reptilian origin.”
The difficulty does not tell against the theory of evolution, but only against the specially Darwinian form of it.
Mivart discusses evidence that “in the fish and the cephalopod not only the eye, but at one and the same time the ear also similarly evolved, yet with complete independence… Cuttle-fishes… formed upon a type of structure utterly remote from that on which the animals of the higher division provided with a spinal column are constructed,” there being “no transitional form” yet discovered. “Nevertheless, in the two-gilled Cephalopods” we find in their craniums the same two complex auditory membranous sacs we find in the “higher classes.”
Here, then, we have a wonderful coincidence indeed; two highly complex auditory organs, marvellously similar in structure, but which must nevertheless have been developed in entire and complete independence one of the other! It would be difficult to calculate the odds against the independent occurrence and conservation of two such complex series of merely accidental and minute haphazard variations.
Such being the case with regard to the organ of hearing, we have another yet stronger argument with regard to the organ of sight, as has been well pointed out by Mr. J. J. Murphy.He calls attention to the fact that the eye must have been perfected in at least ‘three distinct lines of descent… In the cuttle-fishes we find an eye even more completely constructed on the vertebrate type than is the ear. Sclerotic, retina, choroid, vitreous humour, lens, aqueous humour, all are present…
Moreover, we have here again the same imperfection of the four-gilled cephalopod, as compared with the two-gilled, and therefore (if the latter proceeded from the former) a similar indication of a certain comparative rapidity of development. Finally, and this is perhaps one of the most curious circumstances, the process of formation appears to have been, at least in some respects, the same in the eyes of these molluscous animals as in the eyes of vertebrates. For in these latter the cornea is at first perforated, while different degrees of perforation of the same part are presented by different adult cuttle-fishes—large in the calamaries, smaller in the octopods, and reduced to a minute foramen in the true cuttle-fish sepia.
Mivart noted the potential objection that “the conditions requisite for effecting vision are so rigid” that “similar results” “must be arrived at.” But he argued by examples that “Nature herself has demonstrated that there is no such necessity…”
So great, however, is the number of similar, but apparently independent, structures, that we suffer from a perfect embarras de richesses. Thus, for example, we have the convoluted windpipe of the sloth, reminding us of the condition of the windpipe in birds; and in another mammal, allied to the sloth, namely the great ant-eater (Myrmecophaga), we have again an ornithic character in its horny gizzard-like stomach. In man and the highest apes the cæcum has a vermiform appendix, as it has also in the wombat!
Mivart’s comments on one attempted explanation:
We have here, then, a structure hypothetically explained by an uncertain property induced by a cause the presence of which is only conjectural.
Mivart seemed very struck by a report that “twenty-nine kinds of American trees all differ from their nearest European allies in a similar manner, leaves less toothed, buds and seeds smaller, fewer branchlets,” etc.
Mivart was also struck by comparisons to the inorganic world.
As Mr. G. H. Lewes well observes, “We do not suppose the carbonates and phosphates found in various parts of the globe—we do not suppose that the families of alkaloids and salts have any nearer kinship than that which consists in the similarity of their elements, and the conditions of their combination. Hence, in organisms, as in salts, morphological identity may be due to a community of causal connexion, rather than community of descent.“
This organic comparison would form a key piece of Mivart’s alternative theory.
Chapter 4. Minute And Gradual Modifications
Mivart begins to develop his theory “in favour of the view that new species have from time to time manifested themselves with suddenness, and by modifications appearing at once… the species remaining stable in the intervals of such modifications: by stable being meant that their variations only extend for a certain degree in various directions, like oscillations in a stable equilibrium.”
Mivart claims Darwin himself gives examples of such suddenness under human observation or direction:
the young oysters already mentioned [in chapter 2], which were taken from the shores of England and placed in the Mediterranean, and at once altered their mode of growth and formed prominent diverging rays, like those of the proper Mediterranean oyster
…Mr. Darwin tells us, that there has been an occasional development (in five distinct cases) in England of the “japanned” or “black-shouldered peacock” (Pavo nigripennis), a distinct species… he observes, “The case is the most remarkable ever recorded of the abrupt appearance of a new form”
Mivart also refers to “curious jaw appendages” that “often characterize Normandy pigs”
Mr. Darwin observes, “As no wild pigs are known to have analogous appendages, we have at present no reason to suppose that their appearance is due to reversion; and if this be so, we are forced to admit that somewhat complex, though apparently useless structures may be suddenly developed without the aid of selection.”
Mivart runs with this:
There are, then, abundant instances to prove that considerable modifications may suddenly develop themselves, either due to external conditions or to obscure internal causes in the organisms which exhibit them.. it is somewhat startling to meet with Mr. Darwin’s dogmatic assertion that it is “a false belief” that natural species have often originated in the same abrupt manner. The belief may be false, but it is difficult to see how its falsehood can be positively asserted.
Mr.Wallace has replied by “objecting that sudden changes could very rarely be useful.” However, if these changes are not simply random, but, as Mivart supposes, the result of “an innate tendency to deviate at certain times, and under certain conditions” that we simply do not yet understand, “it is no more unlikely that that innate tendency should be an harmonious one, calculated to simultaneously adjust the various parts of the organism to their new relations.”
On a lack of transitional forms in the fossil record:
Professor Huxley… himself says… “We greatly suspect that she” (i.e. Nature) “does make considerable jumps in the way of variation now and then, and that these saltations give rise to some of the gaps which appear to exist in the series of known forms.”
Mivart’s discussions about animals appearing “fully developed” in the fossil record, and the expectation that ancestral forms should have been preserved, reminds me of arguments advocated over a hundred years later by Stephen Meyer in Darwin’s Doubt:
…the great group of whales (Cetacea) was fully developed at the deposition of the Eocene strata… we may pretty safely conclude that these animals were absent as late as the latest secondary rocks, so that their development could not have been so very slow… they are animals, the remains of which are singularly likely to have been preserved had they existed, in the same way that the remains were preserved of the Ichthyosauri and Plesiosauri, which appear to have represented the Cetacea during the secondary geological period.
He also reminds me of modern creationist claims about the fossil record:
all naturalists now admit that certain animals, which were at one time supposed to be connecting links between groups, belong altogether to one group, and not at all to the other…
this early degree of excessive specialization tells to a certain, however small, extent against a progress through excessively minute steps… as also does the distinctness of forms formerly supposed to constitute connecting links. For, it must not be forgotten, that if species have manifested themselves generally by gradual and minute modifications, then the absence, not in one but in all cases, of such connecting links, is a phenomenon which remains to be accounted for.
[While Mivart’s “suddenness” sounds closer to “saltationism” than Stephen Jay Gould’s “punctuated equilibrium,” the modern notion of “stasis” is remarkably reminiscent of Mivart’s “species remaining stable in the intervals of such modifications“]
Chapter 5. As To Specific Stability.
Mivart describes his elaborate analogy about limited variability within species:
the organic world consists…. of many facetted spheroids, each of which can repose upon any one facet, but, when too much disturbed, rolls over till it finds repose in stable equilibrium upon another and distinct facet…
A given animal or plant appears to be contained, as it were, within a sphere of variation: one individual lies near one portion of the surface; another individual, of the same species, near another part of the surface; the average animal at the centre…
it seems that a certain normal specific stability in species, accompanied by occasional sudden and considerable modifications, might be expected a priori from what we know of crystalline inorganic forms and from what we may anticipate with regard to the lowest organic ones
Mivart believed there was evidence to warrant such a belief:
The proposition that species have, under ordinary circumstances, a definite limit to their variability, is largely supported by facts brought forward by the zealous industry of Mr. Darwin himself”…
“he distinctly affirms the existence of a marked internal barrier to change in certain cases… [“the goose seems to have a singularly inflexible organization.”] ….And if this is admitted in one case, the principle is conceded, and it immediately becomes probable that such internal barriers exist in all, although enclosing a much larger field for variation in some cases than in others
Chapter 6. Species And Time
Mivart returns to discussing transitional forms in the fossil record, claiming that “not only are minutely transitional forms generally absent, but they are absent in cases where we might certainly a priori have expected them to be present.”
He tries to address a common explanation:
Mr. Darwin attemptsto show cause why we should believe a priori that intermediate varieties would exist in lesser numbers than the more extreme forms; but though they would doubtless do so sometimes, it seems too much to assert that they would do so generally, still less universally. Now little less than universal and very marked inferiority in numbers would account for the absence of certain series of minutely intermediate fossil specimens. The mass of palæontological evidence is indeed overwhelmingly against minute and gradual modification. It is true that when once an animal has obtained powers of flight its means of diffusion are indefinitely increased, and we might expect to find many relics of an aërial form and few of its antecedent state—with nascent wings just commencing their suspensory power. Yet had such a slow mode of origin, as Darwinians contend for, operated exclusively in all cases, it is absolutely incredible that birds, bats, and pterodactyles should have left the remains they have, and yet not a single relic be preserved in any one instance of any of these different forms of wing in their incipient and relatively imperfect functional condition!
Discussing theories of fossil evidence on the ancestry or birds: “though it harmonizes well with “Natural Selection,” it is equally consistent with the rapid and sudden development of new specific forms of life.”
Mivart was not impressed by transitional horse fossils: These extinct forms, as Professor Owen, remarks,“differ from each other in a greater degree than do the horse, zebra, and ass.”
Not only, however, do we fail to find any traces of the incipient stages of numerous very peculiar groups of animals, but it is undeniable that there are instances which appeared at first to indicate a gradual transition, yet which instances have been shown by further investigation and discovery not to indicate truly anything of the kind….
Now, however, it is considered probable that the soft back-boned Labyrinthodont Archegosaurus, was an immature or larval form, while Labyrinthodonts with completely developed vertebræ have been found to exist amongst the very earliest forms yet discovered. The same may be said regarding the eyes of the trilobites, some of the oldest forms having been found as well furnished in that respect as the very last of the group which has left its remains accessible to observation.
Recalling Stephen Meyers and Darwin’s Doubt again with references to “completely developed” features in the “very earliest forms,” and also later in the chapter when discussing the amount of time required for the earliest deposits:
when those Upper Silurian strata were formed, organic evolution had already run a great part of its course, perhaps the longest, slowest, and most difficult part of that course… We have in all these animal types nervous systems differentiated on distinctly different patterns, fully formed organs of circulation, digestion, excretion, and generation, complexly constructed eyes and other sense organs…
Mivart makes one interesting concession:
Some instances… are of course explicable on the Darwinian theory, provided a sufficiently enormous amount of past time be allowed
However, Mivart believed “all geological history showing continuity of life, must be limited within some such period of past time as one hundred million years,” and he calculated two billion years as the amount of time required, extrapolating speculatively with “increasing ratio” from periods of “ten thousand years” for the evolution of small differences between species:
it is not easy to believe that less than two thousand million years would be required for the totality of animal development by no other means than minute, fortuitous, occasional, and intermitting variations in all conceivable directions. If this be even an approximation to the truth, then there seem to be strong reasons for believing that geological time is not sufficient for such a process…
[Interestingly, scientists now believe life has been on Earth for well over two billion years.]
Chapter 7. Species And Space.
Claims about the difficulty of similar species developing in geographically distinct locations. Again:
All geographical difficulties of the kind would be evaded if we could concede the probability of the independent origin, in different localities, of the same organic forms in animals high in the scale of nature. Similar causes must produce similar results, and new reasons have been lately adduced for believing, as regards the lowest organisms, that the same forms can arise and manifest themselves independently… though highly improbable, this cannot be said to be impossible… if there is an innate law of any kind helping to determine specific evolution…”
Chapter 8. Homologies
Claims about the difficulties of slow development of homologous (similar, symmetrical, repeated) parts within individuals and across species.
if the annulose animals have been formed by aggregation, we ought to find this process much less perfect in the oldest form. But a complete development, such as already obtains in the lobster, &c., was reached by the Eurypterida and Trilobites of the palæozoic strata…
it is surely inconceivable that indefinite variation with survival of the fittest can ever have built up these serial, bilateral, and vertical homologies, without the action of some special innate power or tendency so to build up, possessed by the organism itself in each case. By “special tendency” is meant one the laws and conditions of which are as yet unknown, but which is analogous to the innate power and tendency possessed by crystals similarly, to build up certain peculiar and very definite forms…
Chapter 9. Evolution and Ethics
Mivart argues for Natural Selection’s insufficiency to explain the development of morals. He critiques Darwin’s speculations as to how the “ill effects of close interbreeding” could reasonably lead to an “abhorrence” of incest over time. Mivart then offers a counterexample:
Care of… the aged and infirm are actions on all hands admitted to be “right;” but it is difficult to see how such actions could ever have been so useful to a community as to have been seized on and developed by the exclusive action of the law of the “survival of the fittest.”
Chapter 10. Pangenesis.
Fairly uninteresting remarks on a now-discarded hypothesis “that each living organism is ultimately made up of an almost infinite number of minute particles, or organic atoms, termed ‘gemmules,’ each of which has the power of reproducing its kind.”
Chapter 11. Specific Genesis
Having hinted throughout the previous chapters at a theory of “innate powers” to explain the diversity of life, Mivart describes this theory more fully in the eleventh chapter. He seemed fixated on the way “minerals become modified suddenly and considerably by the action of incident forces – as. e.g., the production of hexagonal tabular crystals of carbonate of copper by sulphuric acid.”
We have thus a certain antecedent probability that if changes are produced in specific manifestation through incident forces, these changes will be sensible and considerable, not minute and infinitesimal.
Consequently, it is probable that new species have appeared from time to time with comparative suddenness, and that they still continue so to arise if all the conditions necessary for specific evolution now obtain…
[Mivart’s idea of “innate tendencies,” while not necessarily borne out in the way he expected, does remind me of the little I understand of epigenetics, which refers to “variations that are caused by external or environmental factors that switch genes on and off.”]
Mivart believed “these ‘jumps’ are considerable in comparison with the minute variations of ‘Natural Selection,’ which he saw as merely refining and improving on the species that appeared by “jumps.”
By some such conception as this, the difficulties here enumerated, which beset the theory of ‘Natural Selection’ pure and simple, are to be got over….
Again, as to the independent origin of closely similar structures, such as the eyes of the Vertebrata and cuttle-fishes, the difficulty is removed if we may adopt the conception of an innate force similarly directed in each case, and assisted by favourable external conditions.
Mivart hints at the source of these capacities:
the conviction forces itself on many minds that the organic world is the expression of an intelligence of some kind… This intelligence, however, is evidently not altogether such as ours, or else has other ends in view than those most obvious to us. For the end is often attained in singularly roundabout ways, or with a prodigality of means which seems out of all proportion with the result…
Mivart claims “this view of evolution harmonizes well with Theistic conceptions,” of which he elaborates more fully in the final chapter.
Chapter 12. Theology and Evolution
Returning to the theme of the opening chapter, Mivart expounds more fully upon the relation of evolution to Christianity and its potential compatibility.
He argues against “some of the objections to the Christian conception of God,” and not without some sharp wit:
It is to be regretted that before writing on this matter Mr. Spencer did not more thoroughly acquaint himself with the ordinary doctrine on the subject.
Mivart touches on “first cause” arguments, relevant to those who question why an uncaused universe is any less unreasonable than an uncaused God:
the difficulty as to a self-existent Creator being in his opinion equal to that of a self-existent universe. To this it may be replied that both are of course equally unimaginable…
But, Mivart argues, while “we have these primary intuitions” that are “perfectly harmonious” with “a self-existent Creator,” “the notion of a self-existent universe… in addition to being unimaginable,” also “contradict our primary intuitions.”
Mivart sees an important distinction between “absolute creation and derivative creation,” quoting Dr. Asa Gray as
Agreeing that plants and animals were produced by Omnipotent fiat, does not exclude the idea of natural order and what we call secondary causes. The record of the fiat—’Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,’ &c., ‘let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind‘—seems even to imply them,” and leads to the conclusion that the various kinds were produced through natural agencies.
“It is plain that physical science and ‘evolution’ can have nothing whatever to do with absolute or primary creation.” He claims older “theological authorities” in support of this distinction, which “thus harmonize with all that modern science can possibly require,” adding that “it may indeed truly be said with Roger Bacon, ‘The saints never condemned many an opinion which the moderns think ought to be condemned.'”
Again analogizing with “crystalline” structures building on “definite lines” and “directions of development,” Mivart contrasted his theory with the atheist’s undirected, unguided, random process:
It is not collected in haphazard, accidental aggregations, but evolves according to its proper laws and special properties.
Mivart argues further against the idea that theology and evolution are incompatible. Acknowledging that “physical nature” and the “moral and religious worlds” initially appear to have a “discrepancy,” he says,
God is indeed inscrutable and incomprehensible to us from the infinity of His attributes, so that our minds can, as it were, only take in, in a most fragmentary and indistinct manner (as through a glass darkly), dim conceptions of infinitesimal portions of His inconceivable perfection… apparently conflicting views arise from our inability to apprehend Him… The difference and discrepancy, however, which is at first felt, is soon seen to proceed not from the reason but from a want of flexibility in the imagination.
On the origin of man:
This animal body must have had a different source from that of the spiritual soul which informs it…
Scripture seems plainly to indicate this when it says that “God made man from the dust of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” This is a plain and direct statement that man’s body was not created in the primary and absolute sense of the word, but was evolved from pre-existing material (symbolized by the term “dust of the earth”), and was therefore only derivatively created, i.e. by the operation of secondary laws. His soul, on the other hand, was created in quite a different way, not by any pre-existing means, external to God himself, but by the direct action of the Almighty, symbolized by the term “breathing:” the very form adopted by Christ, when conferring the supernatural powers and graces of the Christian dispensation, and a form still daily used in the rites and ceremonies of the Church.
That the first man should have had this double origin agrees with what we now experience. For supposing each human soul to be directly and immediately created, yet each human body is evolved by the ordinary operation of natural physical laws.
the Author ventures to hope that this treatise may not be deemed useless, but have contributed, however slightly, towards clearing the way for peace and conciliation and for a more ready perception, of the harmony which exists between those deductions from our primary intuitions before alluded to, and the teachings of physical science, as far, that is, as concerns the evolution of organic forms—the genesis of species.
The aim has been to support the doctrine that these species have been evolved by ordinary natural laws (for the most part unknown) controlled by the subordinate action of “Natural Selection,” and at the same time to remind some that there is and can be absolutely nothing in physical science which forbids them to regard those natural laws as acting with the Divine concurrence and in obedience to a creative fiat originally imposed on the primeval Cosmos, “in the beginning,” by its Creator, its Upholder, and its Lord.
Edward Hitchcock was an old-earth creationist from the 1800’s. A pastor as well as a geological surveyor, Hitchcock’s equal passions for theology and geology were clearly on display in his work The Religion of Geology and its Connected Sciences(1851), a series of lectures arguing for the harmonization of “revelation” (the Bible) with recent discoveries in geology. Hitchcock had an eloquent style, clearly defining his propositions and assertions, differentiating between certainties and conjectures, and kindly acknowledging objections. He argued against both young-earth and atheistic worldviews of his day, claiming that geology reveals an old earth with miraculous creative acts that “corrects” previous interpretations of Scripture and enlarges our understanding of the “vast plans of Jehovah,” expounding on not only the creation of the world but also cosmology, eschatology, and the problem of evil.
The work is freely available in the public domain on Project Gutenberg and elsewhere (I found it on Apple’s iBooks)
Hitchcock believed the Earth’s rocks have changed form since God’s original creation, according to consistent laws and forces, by the same processes presently depositing sediment layers in lakes and seas. He believed these layers contain fossils arranged orderly like “the drawers of a well-regulated cabinet,” with four or five divisions that he interpreted as separate divine acts of creations over time, as geological processes slowly “improved” the Earth’s condition for the presence of more complex creatures, in “a vast series of operations, each successive link springing out of that before it, and becoming more and more beautiful.” He saw all this as evidence of God’s “infinite wisdom” and “infinite benevolence” (phrases which occur over fifty times in the lectures).
On the role of science in interpreting the Bible:
Hitchcock argued that we use many methods to help interpret the “natural” language of the Bible, including grammar and history, and that scientific discovery is simply another viable method. He gave examples from advances in chemistry, meteorology, and astronomy that affected interpretations and argued that geology is just as qualified.
He argued that since the “object” of Scripture is the “plan of salvation,” we “ought not to expect” terms used “in their strict scientific sense,” but in their “popular acceptation.” The “earth” doesn’t necessarily mean the spherical globe proved by science, but “that part of it which was inhabited,” being all the reader would have understood. “We ought only to expect that the facts of science, rightly understood, should not contradict the statements of revelation, rightly interpreted.”
Hitchcock used several examples, beginning with the setting sun as describing appearance rather than scientific accuracy. Like Miller, he quoted the older theologian Turretin as one who insisted on an unmoving central Earth, even though today the “language conveys quite a different meaning to our minds,” and no one suspects any contradiction.
Unlike previous scientific advancements, Hitchcock said some Christians had the idea that the relatively new science of geology was hostile to the Bible, and searched it not to understand but to find contradictions and attack it, resulting in “striking misapprehensions of facts and opinions, with positive and dogmatic assertions, with severe personal insinuations, great ignorance of correct reasoning in geology, and the substitution of wild and extravagant hypotheses for geological theories.” He feared they were weakening the faith, having “excited unreasonable prejudices and alarm among common Christians” against science, while awakening “disgust and even contempt among scientific men… who have inferred that a cause which resorts to such defenses must be very weak.”
While acknowledging that science has degrees of certainty, and that we should be hesitant to alter Biblical interpretation without strong reason, Hitchcock was confident that many claims of geology were solidly settled, and he discussed their connection to previous interpretations of Scripture in three main areas: the age of the earth before man, the existence of animal death before the Fall, and the extent of Noah’s flood.
On the Bible and the age of the Earth:
Hitchcock believed in a literal six-day creation that occurred six thousand years ago, but he argued that Genesis 1 allows for an undefined interval between the creation of the universe out of nothing in verse 1 and the six-day creative act that followed (This sounds similar to what in the early 1900’s was called the “gap” theory, though that word does not occur in the lectures). He was “willing to admit” that “the common interpretation, which makes matter only six thousand years old, is the most natural,” but argued “the strict rules of exegesis” allow for such a gap (his defense includes a treatment of the oft-neglected Exodus 20:11 counterargument, which he argues is a simple summary that does not limit the creation of the universe itself to the six-day creating period).
Rather than describing the first creation of life, Hitchcock believed the “six days’ work” was the most recent of several creative cycles, arguing that Gen 1:2 is better translated something like “Afterwards the earth was desolate,” or “empty and vacuous,” – i.e., finally ready for the creation of man and other creatures after the extinction of the previous cycle.
(He also claimed Psalm 104 as support for this cycle view: “thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust, Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.”)
His interpretation of Genesis 1 includes discussions of “bara” (bawraw) and “asah” (awsaw) and the implications of differentiating between creating “out of nothing” and “renovation or remodeling” of previously created materials. He addressed what I believe now would be called “day-age” interpretations (see his contemporary Hugh Miller), but he thought it required too much cherry-picking to try to fit the geological record into metaphors for the six days or to have the earlier days of creation describing extinct species rather than living ones.
On science and the age of the Earth:
Hitchcock declared that “no chronological dates are registered on the rocks,” unaware that radioactivity would one day be argued to provide the very thing. Yet he believed there was enough evidence to place such unknown dates far beyond six thousand years (though he placed the six-day creation, including Man, at such time.)
Hitchcock seems to have detailed the evidence behind these beliefs in his textbook-style Elemental Geology, but he included some details here. He said man’s remains are only found in the uppermost “alluvium” of a few hundred feet, where only slight changes have been observed in recorded history. The “six or eight miles” of rocks beneath, full of animal remains, suggest a gap closer to “ten million” than “ten” years (the closest he gets to suggesting an actual age). There was “incalculable time requisite to pile up such an immense thickness of materials, and then to harden most of them into stone.”
He declared broadly that “each successive investigation discovers new evidence of changes in composition, or organic contents, or of vertical movements effected by extremely slow agencies, so as to make the whole work immeasurably long,” far beyond lumping into “a few thousand years,” with even more time required for the “decomposition, consolidation, and metamorphosis” of the “far thicker” “non-fossiliferous rocks.” He referred to vast numbers of “vegetables” required to produce “beds of coal from one to fifty feet thick, and extending over thousands of square miles, and alternating several times with sandstone in the same basin. He referred to masses of limestone that are “nearly half composed of microscopic shells,” suggesting the need for large amounts of time for such quantities to live and die and consolidate.
Far from diminishing the power or authority of the Christian God, Hitchcock was adamant that these geological discoveries greatly increased our understanding and appreciation of the “vast plans of Jehovah,” comparing the increase of time to the increase of space. Astronomy had enlarged our knowledge of the numbers of “worlds” by millions, and thus enlarged our conception of the Author’s power, wisdom, and benevolence. He saw “as much grandeur” in the “vast duration” of time as the “vast expansion” of space – in fact, even more so, due to what he saw as evidence of God’s miraculous cyclic creative interventions:
“Mechanical philosophy introduces an unbending and unvarying law between the Creator and his works; but geology unveils his providential hand, cutting asunder that law at intervals, and planting the seeds of a new economy upon a renovated world. We thus seem to be brought into near communion with the infinite mind. We are prepared to listen to his voice when it speaks in revelation. We recognize his guiding and sustaining agency at every step of our pilgrimage. And we await in confident hope and joyful anticipation those sublime manifestations of his character and plans, and those higher enjoyments which will greet the pure soul in the round of eternal ages.”
On death before the Fall:
Unlike the book I read by Hugh Miller, which merely mentioned in passing his view that death before the Fall was an obvious reality, Hitchcock devoted an entire lecture (Lecture 3) to exploring this theology. Noting the common interpretation of animal death originating in the “apostasy” of our “first parents,” he argued that the 1 Corinthians passage (“Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead”) clearly does not include animals, and the Romans passage (“By one man sin entered into the world, and the curse by sin”) doesn’t indicate whether animals are included or not.
If Romans allows for either possibility, and if geology is permitted to help us interpret it, Hitchcock argued that the answer is clear: while man is only found at the very top of fossil layers, animals are found in miles of rocks, many species of which could not live in current climates. Many were clearly carnivorous, as indicated by fossils of other animals inside their bodies, as part of God’s plan to keep animal populations balanced.
Hitchcock developed a theological theme of a cycle of death and resurrection: “Dead organic matter is essential to the support and nourishment of living beings.” He argued that without death there would be no nutrients to support new plant life, and animals would eventually exhaust all available food. “To exclude death… would require an entirely different system.” The carnivorous teeth, muscles for chasing prey, digestive systems for eating it, etc, would have required so much change that it must have “amounted to a new creation,” which in Hitchcock’s view surely would not have “passed unnoticed by the sacred writer.”
Hitchcock addressed the “common” view that Genesis 3 indicates “thorns and thistles” springing from the curse, arguing that this interpretation may have been influenced by Milton’s writings and that the passage could simply indicate the result of man leaving the perfect garden to tend the less fertile soil that was already there. Addressing the view that the curse on the serpent suggests effects on animals, Hitchcock argued this curse was a spiritual reference to the devil only, noting that serpents do not literally “eat dust,” and that while it was “cursed above all cattle,” modern snakes “appear as happy as other animals.”
Hitchcock argued that a “system of death” is a necessary counterpart to a “system of reproduction,” without which the fruitfully multiplying creation would soon have the world “overstocked.” While this may not seem benevolent, he argued that death is not as bad for animals as it is for intelligent, psychological men, and that total animal suffering would be worse without it (animal utilitarianism?). Without the aggravating effects of sin, he actually saw animal death as evidence of “infinite benevolence and wisdom.”
(Hitchcock devoted two additional lectures – 6 and 7 – to expanding this point. He acknowledged that a history full of “desolation and death” would seem “the very place where the objector would find arguments to prove the malevolence, certainly the vindictive justice, of the Deity.” He argued geology offers evidence of the infinite “divine benevolence” not only throughout sinless history but also in the present fallen world, harmonizing “infinite and perfect benevolence in God with the existence of evil on earth,” which he called “the grand problem of theology.”)
Hitchcock argued that man would not have understood the penalty of death if he had not seen it in animals. He also discussed a more speculative theory that historical animal death could have been caused by man’s apostasy even before the apostasy occurred as part of God’s foreknowledge and plan.
Hitchcock seemed open to the question of whether or not sinless man was immortal, suggesting that if not, the tree of life may have preserved against natural decay, and that without sin man may still have “translated” to a higher existence without “death,” like Enoch, Elijah, and the same change that “shall pass upon multitudes” when “we shall all be changed.” In this view, sin changed “not the going out of the world, but the manner of going.”
On Noah’s flood:
Hitchcock believed that ascribing all the fossil layers to a global flood was “absurd.” He argued that Genesis supports a limited regional flood, noting places in the Bible where the phrase “all the earth” only refers to known or inhabited land, not the entire globe, and noting logistical problems with holding all the animals on the Ark and dispersing them afterwards (Hugh Miller’s work went into more detail on this).
He said the Flood cannot explain the geological order of a “well-regulated cabinet,” nor the prevalence of extinct species: “with the exception of a few species near the top of the series, the fossil species are wholly unlike those now alive,” with “at least five distinct races of animals and plants,” many of a “tropical character” that could not have been “contemporaries” with living species.
Hitchcock noted that rivers mentioned in Genesis before the Flood suggest there was not a major reshaping of the land:
This theory requires us to admit, that in three hundred and eighty days the waters of the deluge deposited rocks at least six miles in thickness, over half or two thirds of our existing continents; and these rocks made up of hundreds of thick beds, exceedingly unlike one another in composition and organic contents.
He claimed to have no theological problems resorting to miracle to explain things if necessary, but if history showed not only difficulties, but irreconcilable contradictions, and if a limited flood was consistent with the text and removed the difficulties, then he saw history as revealing a limited flood to be the correct interpretation.
Hitchcock argued in Lecture 9 against the Lamarckian “theory of development” which claimed to show how “all the higher families” “may have been evolved.” He saw this “hypothesis of creation by law” as an attempt to explain “how animals and plants may be produced without any special exercise of creating power on the part of the Deity.” Spontaneous generation was said to support the natural emergence of life “without parentage,” but Hitchcock argued that improvements in science were ruling out more and more claims of such abiogenesis. He correctly predicted that “more scrutinizing observation” would reveal the last remaining footholds of tiny creatures to follow the same pattern of “descending from parents” observed in larger animals.
He argued against claims that the “mammalian embryo” evolves as it forms, literally beginning life as an insect, and becoming a fish, etc, believing (perhaps presciently, in a pre-DNA paradigm) “the human condition results from laws as fixed as those that regulate the movements of the heavenly bodies.”
He noted that hybrid species are generally infertile, and uncommon in the wild, declaring that there seem to be “strong barriers around species.” He claimed animals described in the “catacombs of Egypt” “three thousand years ago” “are precisely like the living species.”
He admitted that the “general” view of geology seems to support the theory of “development” but claims “the tables are turned when we descend to particulars.” He claimed the first members of each epoch are “higher,” not “lower,” and even show signs of “degradation,” not progression, as time unfolds. He said strata are marked by “sudden changes” with “entirely different” species “of a higher grade than those that preceded them, but could not have sprung from them.” He explained his theory that as the earth slowly changed and improved, old groups “died out” as it become “unsuited” to them, and the Creator brought in new “more complicated and perfect” groups better adapted to the new conditions.
He said vertebrates “become more and more complex as we rise on the scale of the rocks,” but there “does not appear to have been much advance” of invertebrate classes, except in numbers and variety. Similarly, flowering plants have gradually advanced and now “predominate,” but flowerless plants “seem to have been as perfect at first as they now are.”
He said the “doctrine of development by law” cannot explain the “wonderful adaptation” of animals and plants to the conditions of the world without making the law as intelligent as the Deity himself. He concluded that the idea “corresponds only in a loose and general way to the facts, and cannot be reconciled to the details. If that hypothesis cannot get a better foothold somewhere else, it will soon find its way into the limbo of things abortive and forgotten.” (Fascinatingly, it was only ten years later that Darwin changed the course of history by presenting such a foothold.)
To Hitchcock, the evidence against such ideas was so “overwhelming” that he speculated that its advocates simply “do not like the idea of a personal, present, overruling Deity.”
On intelligent design:
With remarkable similarity to modern discussions on “intelligent design,” Hitchcock came close to using the very phrase when he referred to “the evidences of high intelligence and unity of design” in Lecture 8 (which even opens with a brief discussion of “the human eye”!)
Hitchcock described creation as “a series of harmonies, wheel within wheel, in countless variety, yet all forming one vast and perfect machine.” He argued that this harmony pervades the entire history of the planet, and that the same laws of physics and chemistry applied throughout (he refers to “the distinct impressions of rain-drops” in red sandstone layers as evidence that “meteorology” has been consistent).
“The present and past conditions of this world are only parts of one and the same great system of infinite wisdom and benevolence.” From biology to chemistry, “one golden chain of harmony links all together, and identifies all as the work of the same infinite mind.” Quoting William Buckland’s Bridgewater Treatise, he said there is so much uniformity of construction and adaptation “that we can scarcely fail to acknowledge in all these facts a demonstration of the unity of the intelligence in which such transcendent harmony originated.”
He also spoke in Lecture 5 of the “argument from design.” “When geology shows us, not the commencement of matter, but of organism, and presents us with full systems of animals and plants springing out of inorganic elements, where is the law that exhibits even a tendency to such results? Nothing can explain them but the law of miracles; that is, creation by divine interposition.”
He argued that this natural evidence for miraculous intervention supported the Christian idea that God would also intervene in history by giving us his Word.
Hitchcock also had some interesting comments on atheism, which he saw the evolutionary hypothesis as tending towards (or, at best, towards a hands-off theism that was still “dangerous,” as it “may swing off into utter irreligion”). He argued against two common arguments that were used to support atheism, which today have been largely forgotten. Hitchcock was remarkably accurate in predicting the demise of both arguments. The first, as referenced above, was that spontaneous generation proved there was no need of a creator to specifically create life.
The second was the idea that the universe was eternal, having always existed and thus needing no creator to kick things off, contra Genesis 1:1. It is often now forgotten that this was a common belief before the Big Bang of the twentieth century. Hitchcock argued that, regardless of the eternity of matter itself, the Earth at least must have had a beginning, and that geology shows modifications of matter only explained by a Deity. He said natural laws may turn a ball of fire into sea and land, but only God could populate the chaos or void with life, initially as well as after each major extinction. “To prove that any organic system shows a tendency to ruin is to show that it had a beginning.” From this he conjectured that if earth and life had beginnings, surely all matter did also? Correctly anticipating the coming overturn of cosmology, he said, “Science has not yet placed within the reach of man the means of proving its non-eternity.”
In hindsight, some of Hitchcock’s work seems more eccentric than brilliant. For instance, he speculated about a very materialistic “new heaven and new Earth” as a final cycle of destruction and re-creation, conjecturing about resurrected bodies made of “ether” that could survive while a new crust cools from the fiery destruction!
Overall, however, given the scientific context of the time, it is remarkable how well most of these lectures hold up over one hundred and fifty years late. Many of Hitchcock’s predictions came true, and many other concepts that have been refined still contain relevant principles. From philosophical bantering about the relation of scripture and science, to exegetical delving into the days of creation, to the “Cambrian explosion” as an example of miraculous creative intervention, many of the same sorts of ideas are still discussed today (often with folks completely unaware that someone two centuries prior thoughtfully engaged the points they bring up).
Hitchcock’s love for both the Bible and natural science shine throughout these engaging lectures. He marveled how the “disturbance and dislocation” of long, slow geological processes could create beautiful scenery, from Niagara to the Alps, that “so intensely gratified” the soul; he saw this as evidence of the “predominance of benevolence” of a Creator who “delights in the happiness of his creatures.” He developed a philosophy of miracles to explain the interaction of natural laws and supernatural intervention, including answers to prayer. He bemoaned that “a large proportion” of the church had “yielded” to skepticism and forsaken the “fasting and prayer” of their forefathers, and wished they would be “led back to the Bible doctrine.”
Regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of his geological views, it cannot be said that he held them in ignorance of the Bible’s teachings, or out of a desire to accommodate evolutionary or atheistic ideas, which he argued against as forcefully as any young-earth creationist of his time or ours. By contrast, he believed geology, “rightly understood,” strengthened the case for a personal loving God of “infinite wisdom and benevolence.” May his work be a comfort to anyone struggling with such issues today.
The three volumes of Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology are widely hailed by geologists, and widely criticized by young-Earth creationists, as a crucial influence in the developing consensus that the Earth’s fossil layers were laid down over a long time period via uniformitarianism. After seeing the work referenced so many times in later writings I decided it was time to go back and read it myself.
The three volumes were revised in numerous editions over Lyell’s life. I found the public domain of the first edition (1830) in Google’s book app on my tablet. My iPhone’s iBook app found the ninth edition (1853). I primarily read through the first edition, though I also read a few chapters of the later edition and noted some interesting differences which I will get to below.
The contents of the first volume were not what I expected as it hardly touched on the geological column. Instead it largely described 1) the forces that presently alter the surface of the globe: rivers, floods, tides, currents, springs, volcanoes, and earthquakes, with 2) examples of how those forces have altered the surface of the globe in the last two thousand or so years of recorded history. This largely serves as a foundation for Lyell’s overall premise that the entire surface of the globe can be best explained by extrapolating those forces far beyond recorded history.
1-4: An overview of beliefs about geology across time and cultures, from primitive legends, to Greek observations, to the 1600’s when fossils were argued to be “sports of nature,” to the 1700’s when they were attributed to the “Noachian” flood, to the “rapid progress” of the 1800’s in developing the idea of long ages
5: Remarks on the “regular order of superposition” of distinct beds of shells and corals, and how the “calendar” expanded as strata of one country filled in gaps of another
6: Claims Europe used to be warmer with fossil evidence of shell species that currently live in warmer climates and mammals that cannot currently survive there
7: Discusses present distribution of land and sea and its effects on climate in different hemispheres. Speculates about different distributions in different time periods having different effects
8: General remarks about strata deposits and mountains being raised up
9: Claims fossil evidence does not support the “successive development” of life from simple to complex
10-26: The real heart of the volume. A methodical discussion of the present effects of rivers and floods, tides and currents, springs, volcanoes and earthquakes in altering the surface of the earth. Presents evidence from written history of the last two millennia of new islands and hills forming from volcanoes and earthquakes, of ancient sea ports now miles inland from river deposits expanding deltas, of tides undermining cliffs into the sea, and many more.
On Fossil Layers
Before reading this book I didn’t grasp conceptually how the bulk of the continental fossil layers were supposed to have been slowly laid down over time – and years ago when I, as a perky young-earth creationist, asked questions in science forums about how “gradual” layers could distinctly “end” and “begin,” I got the impression that most other people didn’t grasp it, either. I think my problem was thinking of land and water surfaces as constants, and struggling to imagine processes that would slowly bury fossils on the land. I think this is partly because I had only ever seen “uniformitarianism” defined by its opponents, presented as a gradual process in contrast to the chaos of a global flood.
Lyell is an effective teacher, and he corrects such misunderstandings in the first pages:
“As the present condition of nations is the result of many antecedent changes, some extremely remote, and others recent, some gradual, others sudden and violent; so the state, of the natural world is the result of a long succession of events”
Uniformitarianism doesn’t say everything can be explained by vague gradual processes; it says everything can be explained by all the processes currently in motion. Lyell says it’s true that, besides volcanic eruptions, strata generally doesn’t deposit on land, which is “almost exclusively the theatre of decay and not of reproduction.” The critical claim is that land and water surfaces are constantly changing! Lyell describes how rivers carry sediment and deposit them on the floors of lakes; the examples of ancient Greek sea ports that were now miles from water due to expanding delta sediments were particularly striking. Later he describes how earthquakes can raise lake beds into dry land and vice versa. There are complicating effects of floods and tides and other things, and I don’t know how much that concept has been corrected or refined over the years, but I feel like I finally “grok” the core of the idea: Geological layers around the globe were deposited by rivers into seas while the floors were under the water, and gaps in layers at any given point simply represent the times those parts of the earth were above water.
On Anti-Christian Bias
Young-earth creationist organizations frequently accuse Lyell of an anti-Christian bias, referring to private letters stating a desire to “free science” from the “dispensation of Moses.” A motive is not usually given.
Reading Lyell for myself, I certainly found no great affection for young-earth “prejudices,” as he called them, and his work is peppered with derisive statements towards those who rejected the possibility of an old earth.
I found some clues to his motives in the early chapters of the volume, when he recounts the progression of geological views. Lyell says that around the 1600’s some argued that fossils were not organic remains but mere “sports of nature,” and he bemoans that a century of scientific progress was “lost.” This view was discarded as fossils became better understood, only to be replaced by the view that they were the result of the Noachian flood. Lyell bemoans that another century and a half was “consumed” by this view. It was only in “recent times” that “rapid progress” was achieved by the “careful determination of the order of succession by means of different organic contents and regular superposition.”
I did not personally read Lyell as intentionally trying to attack or undermine Christianity. He generally only seemed interested in if insofar as it held back what he saw as the progress of science by ruling out possibilities before they were fairly considered. Lyell seemed to hold as much contempt for the Noachian flood as he did the views of the Neptunists and Vulcanists – two competing theories for the origins of the world that were equally non-biblical.
Someone who was simply biased against Christianity could have cast his lot with one of those groups, but Lyell insisted there was no evidence to support them, either. He seemed to simply believe it was evident “that successive strata, containing in regular order of superposition distinct beds of shells and corals, could only have been formed by slow and insensible degrees in a great lapse of ages.”
However, I don’t know from my reading of this volume why Lyell saw this as “freeing” science from Moses, compared to contemporary Christians like Hugh Miller and Edward Hitchcock who fully accepted Lyell’s geology while fully “harmonizing” it with Scripture. It seemed that the ninth edition was more antagonistic toward Christianity than the first (the later historical sketch seemed to exude more bitterness towards Noah’s flood, to the point of suggesting that other cultural legends were more accurate)
Overall, though, Lyell’s discussion of evidence did not necessarily feel biased to me. He seemed careful to note where “our generalizations are yet imperfect” regarding areas of limited observation. He admitted “so much contradiction and inconsistency” regarding calculations of the discharge volume of oceanic deltas,” declaring the need for “additional experiments before we can form any opinion.” Yet Lyell clearly saw a distinction between the uncertain elements of his theory and the more fundamental idea that “the order of succession of different groups” of stratified rocks “was never inverted,” which Lyell claims was independently deduced by multiple geologists, although he did not get to the details of that order in this volume.
Lyell’s relationship with evolution is complex and well-documented elsewhere (his wiki bio has a good introduction). The first edition of Lyell’s work pre-dates Darwin’s Origin of Species by three decades. It is said to have strongly influenced Darwin, who literally read it on the way to the Galápagos islands. Lyell’s work opposed the “successive development” theories of the day, but he was said to be more open to it in private letters, and revised editions became increasingly sympathetic towards it.
With all that in mind, I was surprised at just how strongly Lyell came down against evolutionary ideas in his first volume, not merely avoiding them but actually arguing that the evidence clearly refuted them. In chapter nine, Lyell claims that, while the fossil record has a clear order, that order does not progress from simple to complex: “remains of fish appear in one of the lowest members of the group, which entirely destroys the theory.” He says mammals are rare in all layers, which is to be expected of strata slowly formed in water, but “bones of two species of the opossum” were found in “ancient strata,” which “is as fatal to the theory of successive development as if several hundreds had been discovered.” (He sounds remarkably like a creationist answering Bill Nye’s one-wrong-fossil challenge.) Lyell adamantly concludes, “There is no foundation in geological facts for the popular theory of the successive development of the animal and vegetable world from the simplest to the most perfect forms.”
By the ninth edition, Lyell had indeed softened. Gone was the categorical language; instead he hoped to merely restrict the “theory of progressive development to within very narrow limits.” He still cautioned against assuming that “the creation of any family of animals or plants in past time coincides with the age of the oldest stratified rock in which the geologist has detected its remains.” But now, he said the aforementioned presence of opossums only “seems fatal” to the theory. According to Wikipedia, it was the next edition – the tenth – which came after Darwin’s Origin of Species and finally offered a “tepid endorsement” of the idea.
Bill Nye’s recent book gives a popular overview of evolution, taking snarky pot shots at creationism along the way. He does make some good cases against some of creationism’s weaker arguments, but since the book covers so many different aspects it spends more time saying what scientists currently believe than presenting the evidence that supports those beliefs.
Nye does give the layman a good feel for evolution’s general idea about how species split into others, how geographical separation enhances this, all under a “not perfect but good enough” selection construct. One of the strongest evidences he presents for evolution is the laryngeal nerve that detours down the neck and double backs around a heart artery in all mammals, even giraffes – where it would allegedly be more “intelligent” to “design” it with a direct connection only a few inches long instead of several feet. (Also discussed here on nautil.us.) It’s a good reverse application of the way creationists wonder at a complex well-suited design and say “Gee how could evolution come up with something that good?” Here the evolutionary scientist says “Gee how could an intelligent designer come up with something that bad?” The Case For A Creator presents a good defense of other alleged “bad designs,” but the giraffe nerve seems a pretty strong case (though ICR has a response here).
At the same time, when Nye marvels at evolution’s ability to produce those great outcomes – e.g. wing tips on owls remarkably similar to modern aircraft for extra efficiency – it almost feels to me as incongruent as the evolutionist’s view of the designer. Evolution is good enough to come up with specialized wing tips out of nothing but it never figured out how to reroute a detoured nerve through thousands of mammal species over millions of years? You know if it had happened they’d be saying “it made those creatures just a little bit more competitive…” Was that optimization just not a possible outcome of code edits? I can’t help going back to more fundamental questions… How can we spend so much time arguing about who wrote all this code without considering who wrote the compiler that decides what all these code edits are capable of doing, anyway?
At the risk of nitpick, one poor argument is Nye’s repeated claim (also in the Ham debate, I think) that to get to millions of modern species in 4,000 years from a few thousand “kinds” on Noah’s ark would require “11 new species a day.” But that’s only if you do the math linearly. Elsewhere in the book, Nye proves that evolution can create new species by appealing to mosquitoes that got stuck in London subways during World War II whose mutated descendants can no longer breed with their overland cousins. Intriguing, yes. But this proves too much – if new species can evolve within a century, and each could split into two more, exponential math easily provides enough doubling for millions of species in only two to three thousand years! Granted, the conditions required for that may be extremely infeasible, but it’s a good example of Nye trying too hard to dismiss creationists.
One surprise – I expected the GMO chapter to tow the consensus line that all is well because they let us feed the world and billions of people eat them with no widespread adverse effects. But Nye was actually largely skeptical, presenting reasonable concerns about biodiversity and effects on certain subgroups. Another reminder never to assume too much about people’s identities and associations.
Overall, I found the book to provide a decent entry-level popular explanation of a lot of aspects of evolution, with a few good points against some aspects of creationism, along with bad ones as well. If I wasn’t more open to various forms of old-earth these days I might have found it more threatening than I did. It’s probably mostly preaching to the choir, but even if you’re a hard line young-earther you might consider browsing it to keep up with the latest claims of those pesky scientists.
Over the last year or so, I have been coming across a variety of material by Christians who believe in evolution – a blog here, a book there, a podcast yonder. The prevalence, depth, and diversity of such views are greater than I previously realized. While there is much that I disagree with, I have enjoyed seeing how their sincerity and rationality undermine many of the assumptions underlying the atheist/creationist dichotomy.
Dichotomies are attractive. Our brains like tidy narratives that explain everything and leave no room for mystery. They like simplifying complex issues into two mutually exclusive narratives and picking a side and sticking to it. Either Jesus rose from the dead four thousand years after creating Adam, or life is billions of years old and there is no God. Ken Ham or Richard Dawkins, choose one.
When it comes to interpreting science and history, creationists often suggest that atheists are so biased by a desire not to believe in God that they assume the conclusions they want to reach, distorting an objective interpretation of the evidence. Similarly, many atheists believe Christians are so biased by a need to believe that they uncritically reject anything that challenges their faith.
Christian evolutionists throw a wrench into both views. The creationist cannot write off their belief in evolution as the product of an irrational anti-God bias. They are convinced that Jesus died and rose again, yet for some reason they have also evaluated the case for evolution and found it convincing. That doesn’t prove anything, but it at least should give evolution more respect from the creationist. Similarly, the atheist cannot write off their belief in Jesus as the product of an irrational fundamentalist bias. They accept evolution as rational, yet for some reason they are also convinced that Jesus died and rose again. Again, that doesn’t prove anything, but it at least should give Christianity more respect from the atheist.
Atheists and creationists may think “compatibilists” are driven by some desire to gain acceptance with both sides, or a lack of familiarity with the clear problems with whichever parts of their views overlap with the other side of the dichotomy. This may be true of many of them. But I don’t get that sense from the ones I’ve been running into. In fact, I get that the sense that they’ve wrestled pretty deeply with the challenges that exist on both sides. As little as a year ago, I thought incompatibility was pretty obvious, entrenched as I by years of selective reading and participation in fruitless dichotomous discussions. But first I became aware of a greater diversity of creationist views that leaned farther across the creation-evolution divide (though not all the way) than I realized was possible, revealing many previously hidden assumptions that I was no longer comfortable resolutely declaring one way or the other. Additionally, I read and listened to Christians who did go all the way across, articulately and humbly questioning the assumptions behind incompatibility while simultaneously expressing a clear devotion to Jesus Christ. I haven’t really embraced a different view so much as I’ve become less scared of a wider range of options.
The implications are hard to overstate. I know so many people who grew up in traditional, evangelical, creationist homes who have now left the faith, in large part due to the evidence they found when they left home that contradicted what they had been told was the only way to understand Christianity. I see people express these sentiments so often on the Internet that they must number in the thousands if not millions. I have seen Christians respond to this tragedy by claiming that we must do a better job teaching apologetics. I do not entirely disagree, but if all we do is reinforce the notion of dichotomy, it seems to me a hopeless arms race. The greater the expectation that every challenge has an answer, the more devastating it can be to come across one that doesn’t. Chip one part of the increasingly elaborate narrative tower, and the entire thing crumbles.
If you’ve been taught that following Jesus is connected to the entire Bible being literally true which is connected to the Earth and the life on it being six thousand years old, along with a bunch of apologetic arguments to support that, but you come across evidence from lake varves that really look like algae has been living and dying for over 40,000 years – that can be downright scary! If you think there are only two genuinely viable narratives, and you come across a striking fact that seems to belong to the other one, you can’t even entertain the thought that it might be true without also entertaining the thought that you’ve been wrong about just about everything. I remember the queasy knots I used to feel in my stomach when I read things that poked such rifts in my less flexible worldview, hoping I could come across an explanation to put things to rest. The tragedy is that when you examine assumptions about Hebrew words, and English translations, and the passage of time and space between them, and the huge spectrum of legitimate possible interpretations, you don’t even have to accept evolution or reject an inspired Scripture, much less abandon Christianity altogether, to at least be open to the mere idea that certain things are maybe somehow possible.
To be fair, creationists often acknowledge some uncertainty and variety among Christian views, but in my experience the acceptable range is often pretty narrow, with little effort to counteract the pervasive premise that the primary dichotomous narratives are the only serious, viable choices.
I am not saying that creationists should stop teaching creationism and teach compatibility. But I do wonder if things would be different if more creationists placed more emphasis on the existence of a variety of viewpoints within the fellowship of genuine believers. I understand the reticence; I have heard creationists lament that other views are a watered-down faith that is already halfway to atheism. But could that be because in our disagreement we often do not respect the strongest voices along other parts of the spectrum, or recognize their strong faith? I can’t help but wonder if a little more humility and openness would make us less likely to miss the truth and more likely to lead others to it…
I commonly see a criticism of intelligent design that appears to betray a fundamental misunderstanding or even a total ignorance of what is posited by irreducible complexity. I see this straw man fallacy used so often in this context that I am going to presumptuously attempt to canonically identify it as the Skyscraper Fallacy.
3. You think macroevolution is an inherently different process than microevolution. At its core, “macroevolution” is simply the steady accumulation of the small changes we observe in “microevolution.” It seems any sane person must admit that, if small changes can occur, then it is logically consistent that small changes adding up over extremely long periods of time would result in very large changes. On the other hand, the creationist assertion that there is some mysterious, invisible barrier within “kinds” that prevents large-scale changes is as logically consistent as saying you can walk from your front door to the sidewalk, but walking to your friend’s house across town is fundamentally impossible.
Now there are many legitimate criticisms of ignorant anti-evolutionary arguments in Tyler Francke’s piece (and elsewhere on his site), but I do not believe this is one of them. It is like saying evolutionary processes build skyscrapers one floor at a time, and viewing the evolutionary critic as believing it is possible to add a couple floors to a small building (microevolution) while believing it is impossible to add hundreds of floors (macroevolution).
If the difference between microevolution and macroevolution in the critic’s mind were merely one of magnitude, then it would be legitimate to respond that a large amount of time can easily expand the smaller building and eventually create a skyscraper. To use a more mathematical analogy, it would be like saying evolution is a small multiplier that can turn little numbers into slightly bigger numbers but is incapable of generating gigantic numbers over time. The evolutionary defender claims that the critic is like a mathematician who believes in multiplication but denies the existence of large numbers! How preposterous!
But whenever you find yourself flippantly dismissing a position, it is worth examining whether you are responding to the strongest version of the argument, or merely a weaker straw man.Irreducible complexity refers to systems “composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” The evolutionary critic who posits irreducible complexity is not claiming that all evolutionary processes are like building a skyscraper. He is claiming that many evolutionary processes – perhaps a great deal of them – are more like building an arch.
An arch cannot be built layer by tiny layer, or it will fall over. There must be a carefully-designed simultaneous implementation of interlocking pieces for the construction to be successfully completed. You may need a scissors truss to keep the legs steady or even a hydraulic jack to pry them apart for the final piece if thermal expansion complicates your distances. It would be much more difficult to build an arch than a skyscraper through incremental, undirected processes. The difference is not merely one of magnitude; it is a higher degree of difficulty altogether.
To return to the mathematical analogy, the critic is not saying that enormous numbers do not exist, and that evolution can’t multiply enough times to get there. The critic is saying enormous numbers do exist – but some of them are primes.
But is that really the case? What objections might defenders have to this proposed fallacy?
As the above photo from Utah’s Arches Natural Park indicates, it is possible to build an arch through weathering and erosion. The evolutionary defender may posit lost scaffoldings, changes in function, or other mechanisms, as the wiki link does, to potentially explain the development of every interlocking feature known to biology. Perhaps every biological “prime number” is factorable. Perhaps defenders are perfectly aware of the relative complexities of “arches” but simply sincerely believe that evolution is capable of reducing all of them to outcomes that are just as accomplishable as the “skyscrapers,” so that it is not even necessary to acknowledge the difference.
I would respond that there is a difference between acknowledging a degree of difficulty that you believe is explainable and ignoring it altogether. I do not claim to be an expert on allegedly irreducibly complex mechanisms or the merits of their proposed reductions. But I am at least not convinced that such explanations have strong enough empirical or even hypothetically modeled evidence to warrant the absolute confidence necessary to implicitly assume such reductions.
Furthermore, even if the defender believes the assumption is warranted, I would encourage those who accuse evolutionary critics of sloppy or misinformed postulating to be wary of engaging in such sloppy arguments themselves. When a defender does this, the critic feels his arguments are not being objectively considered but brushed away by the defender’s existing bias.
Perhaps you can’t literally walk to “your friend’s house across town” like you walk “to the sidewalk” because there’s a river and a four-lane highway in the way. Even if there are bridges and ferries and shortcuts and crosswalks that allow us to conjecture solutions, I do not believe a mechanism for taking tiny steps allows one to hand-wave away the other degrees of difficulty simply by appealing to greater magnitudes of tiny steps.
Thus, when I see complexity-based evolutionary critiques hastily dismissed due to the obvious progression of “small changes” to “large-scale changes,” I am not certain whether or not the dismisser truly understands the argument he is dismissing, and that is why I am calling it the Skyscraper Fallacy.