Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 3
Chapter 29 History of Evolutionary Theory Part 2
MORGAN AND MULLER in 1902, *Walter S. Sutton and *T. Boveri independently discovered chromosomes and the linkage of genetic characters. Mendel's research had only been rediscovered two years earlier.
*Thomas Hunt Morgan (1886-1945) was an American biologist who developed the theory of the gene. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1933 for his investigations in genetics. Most of his work was done at Columbia University and Caltech in Pasadena. It was his pioneering work which demonstrated that the genetic determinants were present in a definite linear order in the chromosomes and could be somewhat "mapped." He was the first to work intensively with the fruit fly, Drosophila. The discovery in 1927 that X-rays, gamma rays, and various chemicals could induce mutations in the chromosomes, added to the detective hunt.
It was *H.J. Muller, working at the University of Indiana, who pioneered in using X-rays to induce mutations in fruit flies. He received the Nobel Prize in 1946 for his work. (For much more on this, see chapter 14, Mutations.)
NEO-DARWINISM With the passing of years, the weaknesses in *Charles Darwin's theory became more and more obvious. Although the public is told that Darwin is the great apostle of science to the world, yet, decades ago, a majority of scientists abandoned his teaching.
Gradually, they exchanged "Darwinism" for "Neo-Darwinism." Darwin taught that one species changed into a different species on the basis of natural selection. (In a later edition of his book, he changed the name of the mechanism from ".natural selection" to "survival of fittest" later still, he repudiated natural selection and returned to Lamarckism as the mechanism.)
Classical "Darwinism" is evolution by natural selection. In contrast, "Neo-Darwinism" teaches that it is mutations which have made the changes from one species to another, and that natural selection only produced further adaptation within changed species afterward. Thus, in the early 20th century, research intensified to explain how mutations could indeed be the mechanism for evolution.
In regard to life forms, "evolution" means two things: (1) Living creatures initially came into existence from such things as dirt and water. (2) Living creatures then gradually evolved, through transitional forms, from one species to another.
With this in mind, finding a mechanism by which one species could evolve into another would obviously be crucial. (However, there should also be evidence of those transitional life forms today, as well as in the fossil record.)
So scientists set to work to prove mutations as the needed mechanism. The story of their failure is told in chapter 14 (Mutations).
THE SCOPES TRIAL From July 10 to July 21, 1925, *John Thomas Scopes (1901-1970), a Rhea County high school teacher stood trial for teaching evolution in Dayton, Tennessee.
The American Civil Liberties Union had been searching for a Tennessee teacher willing to be prosecuted in a test case, in order to overturn the Butler Act which forbade the teaching of evolution in Tennessee schools.
Young Scopes (24 years old at the time) was a biology teacher. The entire trial, widely reported as the "Tennessee Monkey Trial" was presented to the public as something of a comic opera. But the objective was deadly serious.
The ACLU wanted to so humiliate a State for daring to forbid evolutionary teaching, that neither it nor any other one would ever do it again. They succeeded very well. Although the verdict was against Scopes, America's politicians and educational leaders learned the lesson: Don't oppose the evolutionist camp.
All in all, the Scopes trial was a major victory for evolution, not only in the United States but all over the world.
Once again evolutionary theory won, but, as usual, not on the basis of scientific evidence, but by means of ridicule, side issues, misinformation, and false statements and conclusions.
For more information on this very important event, see chapter 30, The Scopes Trial.
PRICE George McCready Price (1870-1963) obtained both a baccalaureate and a master's level degree (1912 and 1918), but not in science. Yet he was destined to become one of the staunchest opponents of evolution in our century.
"The most important creationist writer of the first half-century, at least in my judgment, was a remarkable man by the name of George McCready Price." H.M. Morris, History of Modern Creationism (1984), p. 79.
It is generally acknowledged that this self-taught geologist uncovered a large amount of solid evidence disproving evolutionary claims, and in so doing laid the groundwork for the antievolution movement that others, particularly the Christian Science Association and Institute for Creation Research, have carried on so well.
Price was eventually to teach at four colleges and be president of a fifth (Stanborough College, in England). He retired from college work in 1938 and devoted his full time to writing. In all he produced 38 books and numerous articles to various journals.
"George McCready Price was undoubtedly the pioneer 'creationist' or Flood geologist of the twentieth century, as Martin Gardner described him: 'Head and shoulders above all others.. he is in fact the last and the greatest of the antievolutionists. . the name of this remarkable man is George McCready Price." Clifford L. Burdick Book Review, in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1972, p. 194.
"The present creationist belief system owes much to a self-taught geologist named George McCready Price." R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 99.
Price was, without doubt, the leading anti-evolutionist writer of the first half of the 20th century.
"Almost the only writers to advocate literal recent creationism during this period, however, were to be found among the Lutherans and Seventh-day Adventists, no doubt partly because their respective founders, Martin Luther and Ellen G. White, had taught six-day creationism and a worldwide flood. Even among the Lutherans, modernism had made great inroads, but there was a strong remnant of creationists, and many of these still adhered to a no-compromise position on the six days.
"However, the only serious geological defense of the Biblical view came from an unlikely source, a self-taught Adventist geologist named George McCready Price." Henry Morris, History of Modern Creationism (1984), p. 80.
LYSENKO Trofim D. Lysenko (1893-1976) rose to power in the 1930s in the U.S.S.R. by convincing the government he could create a State Science that combined Darwinian evolutionary theory with Marxist theory. With *Stalin's hearty backing, Lysenko became responsible for the death of thousands. Many of the best Russian scientists were put to death.
Long after Lamarckian inheritance had been abandoned elsewhere, Russia retained this belief. Refusing to accept that each generation must be educated anew, Marxism felt that Marxist revolution principles would enter the genes and transform society into thorough-going Communism! Under Lysenko's dominance of Soviet science, "Mendelist" genetics was a forbidden doctrine, a bourgeois heresy. Lysenko was finally ousted in 1965 when his theories produced agricultural disaster for the nation. (He claimed to be able to change winter wheat into spring wheat through temperature change, and wheat into rye in one generation.)
CLARK *Austin H. Clark, an ardent evolutionist (1880-1954), was on the staff of the Smithsonian Institute from 1908 to 1950, as well as a member of several other scientific organizations. He authored a number of books and about 600 scientific articles in five languages. After years of study into the problems facing evolutionary theory, he struck out with a new theory.
In his 1930 book, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, he cited fact after fact disproving the possibility that major types of plants and animals could have evolved from one another. Then he suggested his alternate proposal, which he called Zoogenesis He declared that each major type of life form must have evolved totally separately and independently from the others! This would have meant that all the distinct major types of creatures had arise out of dirt, water, and lightning, and then, totally independent of all the others, had evolved into their present forms!
"From all the tangible evidence that we now have been able to discover, we are forced to the conclusion that all the major groups of animals at the very first held just about the same relation to each other that they do today." *A.H. Clark The New Evolution: Zoogenesis (1930), p. 211.
"Throughout the fossil record these major groups remain essentially unchanged . . No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon the earth, we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the various major groups or phyla. . Since we have not the slightest evidence, either among the living or in fossil animals, of any intermediate types following the major groups, it is a fair supposition that there never have been any such intergrading types." *Op, cit., pp. 100, 189, 198.
"All the major groups of animals have maintained the same relationship to each other from the very first . . Crustaceans have always been crustaceans, echinoderms have always been echinoderms, and mollusks have always been mollusks. There is not the slightest evidence which supports any other view." *Op. cit, p. 114.
The evolutionary world was stunned into silence. They had been hit in a weak spot, and knew not how to reply to his astonishing theory, which would obviously require more miracles than theirs did! Yet they could not answer his arguments, in which he pointed out several major weaknesses in their conjectures. All they could do was to ridicule it, as they already were doing to the creationists.
AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION In 1933, the American Humanist Association was formed in Chicago. "Humanist" is the modern word for "atheist." This organization immediately began working closely with the ACLU and the science federations to promote evolutionary theory. Signatories included well-known people, such as Julian Huxley (*T.H. Huxley's grandson), *John Dewey, *Margaret Sanger, *Linus Pauling, *H.J. Muller, *Benjamin Spock, *Erich Fromm, and *Carl Rogers.
The organization became a non-profit organization a decade later. Please notice that they call their belief "a religion":
"Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a non-theistic religion, a way of life . . The American Humanist Association is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization, incorporated in the early 1940's in Illinois for educational and religious purposes." *American Humanist Association promotional literature.
GOLDSCHMIDT *Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958) was an earnest young evolutionist who was anxious to have a part in winning the final conquest for the cause of evolution. While director at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute fur Biologie in Berlin, he decided to focus his research on mutations. Selecting the gypsy moth (Lymantria), he spent 25 exhausting years engaged in breeding experiments with the moth, producing many generations each year. He was determined to prove evolution) Goldschmidt combined hard work with outstanding scientific ability. In the early 1930s, a young man, Harold W. Clark, studied under Goldschmidt, and found him to be a disillusioned man.
"During the winter of 1932-33, while I attended the University of California, at Berkeley, he (Goldschmidt) lectured there on his work. During a question and answer period, someone asked him just how evolution worked. His answer was, that as far as gypsy moths were concerned, it simply did not. Whenever he obtained variations that were very far from the averse, they immediately changed back to the norm in a generation a two. He concluded that accumulation of variations leads to diversification strictly within the species and are art adaptation roc local conditions. They do not result in the development of major groups . . XXX
"The next morning after his lecture a number of students asked Goldschmidt to go over to the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, where they had laid out series of different kinds of animals. They pointed to the variation in the series and asked if that did not imply evolution. To the question, Goldschmidt responded that he saw variations all right, but he noted that the rats were still rats, the rabbits were still rabbits, and the foxes were still foxes. He saw no evidence of one kind turning into another." Harold W. Clark, New Creationism (1980), pp. 37-38.
"After perhaps a million breedings of different varieties from around the world, he [Goldschmidt] came to the conclusion that geographic variation is a blind alley that leads only to microevolution within the species. Because of his studies, he had to conclude that for major progressive evolution to occur, large mutations or macromutations must have occurred in the past." Harold G. Coffin, "Creation: the Evidence from Science, " These Times, January 1970, p. 25.
By 1940, Goldschmidt could take no more. He formulated a theory and published it that year. It represented a powerful attack on evolution, actually one of the most powerful up to its time. In his book, The Material Basis of Evolution, Goldschmidt exploded point after point in the ammunition box of evolutionary theory. He literally tore the theory to pieces. And no one knew how to answer him. They still cannot answer him today. The evolutionists were used to creationists and had a standard set of replies for them ("They're just a bunch of religionists," etc.) But Goldschmidt was different; he was a confirmed evolutionist with no leanings toward religion or creationism. He was just an honest atheist who was facing the facts.
He challenged Darwinists to explain such features as hair on mammals, feathers on birds, formation of the gill arches, shells of mollusks, compound eyes, and many other features. After soundly destroying the basis of evolutionary theory, Goldschmidt then announced his new theory: a megaevolution in which one life form suddenly emerged complete out of a different one! He called these suddenly emerging new creatures, "hopeful monsters." He said that it was impossible for natural selection to produce one species out of another, or for mutations to gradually do it either!
Instead, Goldschmidt explained that one day some fish laid some fish eggs, and a frog hatched out of one of them) Later on, a frog laid some frog eggs, and a snake hatched out of it! Still later, a snake laid an egg, and a bird hatched out of it! On and on. Goldschmidt asked for even bigger miracles than A.H. Clark proposed!
Frankly, the scientifically accurate thrashing he gave to Darwinism and neo-Darwinism, combined with the idiotic foolishness of his hopeful monster theory, left scientists in a daze. All they could do was ridicule him and wish he would disappear.
"It was in 1940, shortly after moving from Berlin to Berkeley, that Goldschmidt published his major work, Material Basis of Evolution. This touched off a controversy that has not yet entirely died down. The public hardly knew that anything was going on, but within the profession the Goldschmidt episode was a much greater event than the Scopes trial." *Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1974), p. 152. (A detailed analysis of Goldschmidt's book will be found in Willem J. Ouwennel, "Homosotic Mutants and Evolution, " in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1975, pp. 141-154.)
Could Goldschmidt be right? As we have already learned in other chapters in this set of books, an understanding of (1) the extremely complex nature of DNA, (2) the species padlock of the genetic barrier, (3) the 99 percent harmfulness of mutations. (4) the totally random, unorganized nature of mutations, (5) the rarity of occurrence of even the smallest of mutational changes, much less (6) the sudden 10 billion billion of themand every one positiverequired for just one of Goldschmidt's hopeful monsters to suddenly hatchtotally annihilates his theory.
It should be mentioned here that *O.H. Schinderwolf proposed the same basic theory back in the mid-1930s. He also felt that evolution must have occurred by sudden jumps. Prior to *Goldschmidt, he said a reptile laid an egg and hatched out a full-fledged bird, and that explained the reptile-to-bird gap. But it was Goldschmidt, a world-famous geneticist, who was the most successful in proclaiming it.
"There has recently been renewed expression of support for the importance in macroevolution of what Goldschmidt termed the hopeful monster . . At least in principle, Goldschmidt accepted Schindewolf's extreme example of the first bird hatching from a reptile egg. The problem with Goldschmidt's radical concept is the low probability that a totally monstrous form will find a mate and produce fertile offspring" *Steven M Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process (1979), p. 159.
For more detailed refutation of the hopeful monster theory, see chapter 14 (Mutations) and chapter 17 (Fossils and Strata).
3 - 1950 TO THE PRESENT
HUXLEY* Sir Julian S. Huxley (1887-1975) was a leading evolutionary spokesman in the mid-20th century. Grandson of *Thomas H. Huxley, Julian became a biologist and wrote and lectured on behalf of evolution. Upon being named the first director-general of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), he was able to make evolution the keystone of United Nations scientific policy. Huxley recognized that this was would be his supreme opportunity to extend evolutionary thinking to the nations of the world, and he made the most of it. In a widely-distributed UNESCO pamphlet, he wrote this:
"UNESCO must constantly be testing its policies against the touchstone of evolutionary progress . . The key to man's advance, the distinctive method which has made evolutionary progress in the human sector so much more rapid . . is the fact of cumulative tradition, the existence of a common pool of ideas which is self-perpetuating and itself capable of evolving . . [Therefore] the type of social organization [is] the main factor in [advancing or limiting] social progress." *Julian Huxley, UNESCO pamphlet.
Huxley was clearly bent on reshaping national governments into the evolutionary mold. He also thought well of Marxism, which is itself is based on evolutionary theory.
VELIKOVSKY *Immanuel Velikovsky soon became another rebel in the evolutionists' camp. He wrote books speculating that moons and planets had collided in the past, causing immense upheavals, and world-wide catastrophes which had wiped out 95% of the life forms on the earth. Velikovsky's major accomplishment was to bring discussion around toward catastrophism among scientists. Because of the Flood, our planet is filled with evidence of a catastrophic deluge.
DARWINIAN CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION As the year 1959 approached, evolutionists saw it could be used as a great opportunity for ballyhoo about the glories of evolutionary theory. That year would mark the 100th anniversary of the publication of *Darwin's Origin of the Species. As the year approached, a flood of books and articles eulogizing Darwin came off the presses. Many meetings and observances were scheduled for both 1958 and 1959. The largest occurred at that bastion of evolutionary belief, the University of Chicago, which played such a key role in the 1925 Scopes Trial. Their Centennial Celebration lasted a full week, beginning on November 24, 1959. *Thomas Huxley's grandson, *Julian Huxley, gave the keynote address, focusing his attention on a total repudiation of God.
Two very significant books dealing with evolution were released that year. The first was by *Gertrude Himmelfarb, who held a doctorate from the University of Chicago. Entitled, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, her book was a powerful attack on evolutionary theory and the havoc it has wrought in the modem world. After noting the subtitle to Darwin's Origin of the Species was The Preservation of Favored Races In the Struggle for Life, Dr. Himmelfarb went on to say:
" . . it was a short step to the preservation of favored individuals, classes, a nations, and from their preservation to their glorification. Social Darwinism has often been understood in this sense: as a philosophy exalting competition, power, and violence over convention, ethics, and religion. Thus it has become a portmanteau [traveling bag] of nationalism, imperialism, militarism, and dictatorship, or the cults of the hero, the superman, and the master race." *Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and die Darwinian Revolution (1959), p. 343.
The other book was by *Jacques Barzun, professor of history and dean of the Graduate Faculties at Columbia University. His book was just as direct and to the point:
"No one who has not waded through some sizable part of the literature of the period 1870 to 1914 has any conception of the extent to which it is one long call for blood." *Jacques Barzun, Darwin, Mans, Wagner (1959 edition), p. 100.
(For much more on the social effects of evolutionary theory, see chapter 33, Evolution and Society.)
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES CURRICULUM STUDY Another significant event of 1959 was the establishment of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS). BSCS was formed by the American Institute of Biological Scientists, representing 85,000 members, "as a means of contributing to the improvement of secondary school biological education." Their stated objective was to change the biology texts, so that they no longer taught merely scientific facts, but also "organic evolution, the nature of individual and racial differences, sex and reproduction in the human species, and problems of population growth and control." (*B. Glass and *A.B. Grobman, Biological Science: An Inquiry Into Life, p. xv.)
BSCS quickly received a $7 million grant from the National Science Foundation to develop this new series of biological texts for the public schools, which would emphasis evolution, racial problems, sex education, and abortion. "Social education," not merely biological information, was to be the goal.
Shortly afterward, a second major textbook revision project was given $7 million by the National Science Foundation. This project, called Man: A Course of Study (Macos) was also heavily saturated with evolutionary humanism and morally objectionable interpretations of personal and social life.
REVOLT IN FRANCE In the early 1960s, a number of French scientists repudiated the evolutionary cause as hopeless.
"This year saw the controversy rapidly growing, until recently it culminated in the title 'Should We Burn Darwin?' spread over two pages of the magazine 'Science et Vie'.
"The article, by the science writer Aime Michel, was based on the author's interviews with such specialists as Mrs. Andres Tetry, professor at the famous 'Ecole des Hautes Etudes' and Chauvin and other noted French biologists, and on his thorough study of some 600 pages of biological data collected, in collaboration with Mrs. Tetry, by the late Michael Cuenot, a biologist of international fame.
"Aime Michel's conclusion is significant: the classical theory of evolution in its strict sense belongs to the past. Even if they do not publicly take a definite stand, almost all French specialists hold today strong mental reservations as to the validity of natural selection." *Z. Litinski, "Should We Burn Darwin?" in Silence Digest Vol. 51, January 1961, p. 61.
CHILDREN'S BOOKS This Alice-in-Wonderland type of modern science, called "evolutionary science," has even invaded children's books. "The Wonderful Egg" was published in 1958, and immediately received specific recommendation by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, as a worthwhile science guide for little children. Two major educational organizations (the American Council on Education, and the Association for Childhood Education International; both American Education Association affiliates) also gave it their highest recommendation. The book begins with a mother dinosaur laying an egg.
"After asking, 'Did a mother dinosaur lay that egg to hatch into a baby dinosaur?' the book answers 'no' to brontosaur, stegosaur, and a list of other dinosaurs. Then comes the dramatic conclusion. The egg laid by the mother dinosaur wasn't a dinosaur egg at all: 'It was a wonderful new kind of egg.' And what did this dinosaur egg hatch into? ' It hatched into a baby bird, the first baby bird in the whole works. And the baby bird grew up. . with feathers. . the first beautiful bird that ever sang a song high in the tree tops. . of long, long ago." quoted in Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What is Creation Science? p. 148.
The above-mentioned children's book, like many of its kind, contains mythical symbolism which, it is hoped, will remain with the child for years to come, so that when grown, he might more easily yield his mind to the adult version, the myth of modern evolutionary theory.
DNA The discovery of DNA shook the foundations of evolutionary theory. The story of deoxyrlbonuclelc acid (DNA) is lengthy and is explained in much greater detail in chapter 10, where the history of this discovery and the tremendous implications of this research breakthrough are discussed. The coding within the DNA molecule is the reason why one species cannot change into another. Evolutionists can find no way to get around the DNA code. Mendel's basic insight in the middle of the 19th century was that genetic material in the body does not change. Later discoveries of the chromosome, gene, and DNA, and then the DNA code only intensified the meaning of what Mendel had stumbled across. The bricks in the "genetic barrier" were seen to be so solid that evolutionists stood aghast at the implications.
CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY During the first half of the 20th century, it seemed at times that George M. Price was fighting the battle against evolution single-handed. But the situation later changed, especially in the 1960s, when entire organizations arose to oppose evolutionary theory. The Creation Research Society (CRS) began in 1963, and their Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ) has been a mainstay of creationist thinkers ever since. It is a quarterly journal of peer-reviewed research papers on all aspects of scientific creationism. In addition to hundreds of other members, they have a current membership of about 700 scientists with postgraduate degrees in science.
There are now also over 100 other creationist associations around the world, many of them regional or city-wide. One of the larger of these, the Bible-Science Association (BSA), also began in 1963.
INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is the giant in the field. Formed in 1970 in the San Diego, California area, it has a full-time staff of Ph.D. scientists, an active research and publications division, an extensive ministry of speaking and debating all over the world, and a unique creationist graduate school (begun in 1980) that offers master of science degrees in several key areas of science. ICR has sponsored about 70 books, over 200 major creation-evolution debates on university campuses, and thousands of lectures throughout the world. It has probably been the most influential group in explaining creation principles to the world and stemming the tide of evolutionary advance among Christian groups.
AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC AFFILIATION The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is walking down a different road. It began as a creationist organization in 1941, but was soon taken over by compromising Christian intellectuals in secular universities and certain prestigious Christian colleges. For many years now, it has been dominated by theistic evolutionists. The Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF) has undergone a similar deterioration in regard to its creationistic position. In addition, many interdenominational organizations, Christian journals, missionary organizations, and other evangelical institutions are taking that same path toward compromise with full-blown evolution. Their position is termed theistic evolution by creationists, while they themselves call it progressive creationism. In most instances, an underlying issue governing their divergent views is their view that the world and everything in it was not created in six days, but instead evolved over a period of long ages of time. Theistic evolutionists generally do not accept Flood evidences either, although there is divergent thinking among theistic evolutionists.
GOULD *Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard professor, is a leading paleontologist (an expert in fossils), and the most influential evolutionist of the 1980s.
"Non-gradual theories had been advanced from time to time in the past. The issue was raised again in 1972 in a cautious paper by two American biologists, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Gould, entitled `Punctuated Equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism'. It was largely ignored: the time bomb did not go off for another five years, when they published a further paper in the respected journal Paleobiology entitled `Punctuated Equilibria: the Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered." *Gordon R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 8.
In 1977 he published that article in a leading scientific journal that brought *Goldschmidt's theory back to center stage. Because of Gould, and others who have joined him in the battle, it is tending to stay there, much to the chagrin of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolutionary scientists. As Gould explains it, a massive mutational change suddenly occurs every 50,000 years, and produces two each of a new species. The two will be the same, except one will be a male and the other a female, and they will be born by total accident not far from each other. Following that incident, there will be no more such occurrences for another 50,000 years. That is the theory. (The theory requires that such incidents happen very infrequently, since they have not occurred in recorded history.) Gould also refers to these sudden transitions as "hopeful monsters. "
"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. . Macroevolution proceeds by the rare success of these hopeful monsters, not by continuous small changes within the populations." *Stephen Gould, "The Return of the Hopeful Monsters, " in Natural History, June/July, 1977
Fully acknowledging this to be a resurrection of Goldschmidt's theory, which scientists ridiculed 37 years before, Gould adds:
"I predict that during the next decade [the 1980s) Goldschmidt will be largely vindicated in the world of evolutionary biology." *Ibid.
Shortly after this, working with *Niles Eldredge, Gould entitled this new approach "punctuated equilibrium." Later still, *Steven M. Stanley, another noted scientist, joined the hopeful monster camp and called the process "quantum speciation."
Here is how Gould describes it:
"Thus, our model of 'punctuated equilibria' holds that evolution is concentrated in events of speciation and is an infrequent event punctuating the stasis of large populations that do not alter in fundamental ways during the millions of years that they endure." *Steven Gould, "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?" in Paleobiology, January 1980, p. 127.
This mysterious mythical process of near-instantaneous evolution is supposed to result from cataclysmic mutations in the regulatory genes that control early development.
Although far-fetched as something out of a children's fairy tale book, adherents of the hopeful monster theory point to the fact that there can be no evidence that they did not occur! All of a sudden it happens, and there is nothing to show that it did happen. No transitional forms between phylum, class, family, genus, or species will ever be found, and that is what the fossil record reveals.
Such a pattern is just great for evolutionary theorists to play with. It brings modern science back to the Dark Ages when "science" was entirely a matter of theory, with no physical or experimental verification.
But wait: is there no evidence opposing the hopeful monster theory? There is plenty of it. The monster is said to be the result of billions of sudden mutations. (1) All or nearly all mutations are weakening or lethal. (2) All mutations are random, and all of the suddenly-occurring billions in the monster's DNA would have to be organized, balanced, and inter-networked.
A mating pair of acceptable, living, reproducing monsters is said to occur only once every 50,000 years, and none in betweenwhich is why we see none occurring today. This is the height of theoretical foolishness. (1) This once in 50,000 years occurrence must occur twice: a male and female monster born at the same time and only a few miles apart. (2) In order for one monster to succeed, there would have to be millions of monsters that failed to make the grade toward a viable, new species. Thus monsters ought be born continually in our own time, but this is not happening. More could be said. See chapter 14, Mutations, for additional discussion.
Gould, the leading advocate in our time of hopeful monsters, voices the desperation that requires such a wild theory:
"Heretofore, we [scientists] have thrown up our hands in frustration at the lack of expected [evolutionary] pattern in life's history, or we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it . . If we can develop a general theory of mass extinction, we may finally understand why life has thwarted our expectations, and we may even extract an unexpected kind of pattern [mythical birds out of snake eggs] from apparent [evolutionary] chaos." *Steven Gould, "the Ediacaran Experiment," in Natural History, February 1984, p. 23.
Totally disillusioned with the obvious fact that the fossil evidence reveals no evolutionary progression, but merely all the creatures now alive, plus a few extinct ones, Gould mourns:
"I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record." *Ibid
Like Goldschmidt, Gould unsparingly attacks the key concept of "uniformitarianism."
"Substantive uniformitarianism as a descriptive theory has not withstood the test of new data and can no longer be maintained in any strict manner." *Steven Gould, "is Uniformitarianism Necessary?" in American Journal of Science, March 1985. P- 227.
"Often, I am afraid, the subject [uniformitarianism] is taught superficially, with Geikie's maxim 'the present is the key to the past' used as a catechism and the imposing term 'uniformitarianism' as a smokescreen to hide confusion both of student and teacher." *Steven Jay Gould, "Is Uniformitarianism Useful?" In Journal of Geological Education, October 1967, p. 150.
In chapter 33 (Evolution and Society), we will discover that this hopeful monster theory was originated in the Soviet Union in the 1930s and 1940s in order to adapt Darwinism to Marxist theory. You will find the analysis in that chapter of special interest, in view of the fact that this Marxist theory is now taking over Western scientific thought. Gould has admitted to his Marxist background.
STANLEY *Steven M. Stanley, of John Hopkins University, is one of America's leading paleontologists. An expert in fossils and earlier life forms, he came to the same conclusion that Gould did.
"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid." *Steven Stanley, Microevolution: Pattern and Process (1979), p. 39.
("Microevolution" is merely change within species, and is not evolution at all. "Macroevolution" is change across species, producing a new one. This never occurs. Some evolutionists refer to the Goldschmidt/Gould/Stanley hopeful monster version of evolution as "megaevolution."
Because of the hopelessness of normal evolutionary theory, *Stanley has climbed on the hopeful monster bandwagon, and renamed the process "quantum speciation." But in trying to correct one of the multitudes of flaws in the Goldschmidt-Gould theory, he has ended up making the situation worse.
"There has recently been renewed expression of support for the importance in macroevolution of what Goldschmidt termed the hopeful monster. . At least in principle, Goldschmidt accepted Schindewolf's extreme example of the first bird hatching from a reptile egg. The problem with Goldschmidt's radical concept is the low probability that a totally monstrous form will find a mate and produce fertile offspring." *Steven Stanley, "Macroevolution and the Fossil Record" in Evolution, Mardi 1982, p. 460.
And that is just one more to add to the other BIG problems with this peculiar theory. *Stanley tries to solve the problem by theorizing that, for example, after 50,000 years several birds, instead of only two, would by sheerest coincidence hatch out of several reptile eggs in the same general locality. In this way it is hoped that a few could survive predators, grow up and successfully breed with one another.
"Evidence is also mounting that quantum speciation events themselves may span rather few generations . . It is generally agreed that quantum speciation takes place within very small populations, some would say populations involving fewer than 10 individuals." *Steven Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process (1979), p. 145.
For additional replies to this strange error, see chapters 14 and 17, Mutations and Fossils.
THE 1966 MEETING It was not until the 1960s that the neo-Darwinists began fighting among themselves in earnest.
"The ascription of all changes in form to chance has long caused raised eyebrows. Let us not dally with the doubts of nineteenth-century critics, however, for the issue subsided. But it raised its ugly head again in a fairly dramatic form in 1965, when a handful of mathematicians and biologists were chatting over a picnic lunch organised by the physicist Victor Weisskopf, who is a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and one of the original Los Alamos atomic bomb group, at his house in Geneva. 'A rather weird discussion' took place. The subject was evolution by natural selection. The mathematicians were stunned by the optimism of the evolutionists about what could be achieved by chance. So wide was the rift that they decided too organise a conference, which was called Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution. The conference was chaired by Sir Peter Medawar, whose work on graft rejection won him a Nobel prize and who, at the time, was director of the Medical Research Council's laboratories in North London. Not, you will understand, the kind of man to speak wildly or without careful thought. In opening the meeting, he said: 'The immediate cause of this coherence is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought of as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory. This dissatisfaction has been expressed from several quarters." *G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 4.
A milestone meeting was the Wistar Institute Symposium held in Philadelphia in April 1966. The chairman, *Sir Peter Medawar, made the following opening remark:
"The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking work), the so-called neo-Darwinian theory . . These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them." *Peter Medawar, remarks by the chairman, in *Paul Moorhead and *Martin Kaplan (ed:), Mathematical Challenges to the NeoDarwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Monograph No. 5.
A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute. They clearly refuted neo-Darwinianism in several areas, and showed that its "fitness" and "adaptation" theories were tautologous, little more than circular reasoning. In contrast, some of the biologists who spoke at the convention could not see the light. They understood bugs and turtles, but could grasp neither the mathematical impossibilities of evolutionary theory nor the broad picture of how thoroughly defunct evolution really is.
For example, one of the mathematicians, *Murray Eden of MIT, explained that life could not begin by the "random selection" which is the basic pillar of evolutionary teaching. Yet he said that if randomness is set aside, then only "design" would remain, and that would require purposively planning by an Intelligence.
*C.H. Waddington, a prominent British evolutionist, scathingly attacked neo-Darwinism, maintaining that all it proved was that plants and animals could have offspring!
The 1966 Wistar convention was the result of a meeting of mathematicians and biologists the year before in Switzerland. Mathematical doubts about Darwinian theory had been raised, and at the end of several hours of heated discussion, it was agreed that a meeting be held the next year to more fully air the problems. *Dr. Martin Kaplan then set to work to lay plans for the 1966 Wistar Institute.
It was the development of tremendously powerful digital computers, that sparked the controversy. At last mathematicians were able to work out the probabilities of evolution ever having occurred. They discovered that, mathematically, life could neither have begun nor evolved by random action.
For four days the Wistar convention continued, during which a key lecture was delivered by *M. P. Schutzenberger, a computer scientist, who explained that computers are large enough now to totally work out the mathematical probabilities of evolutionary theory, and they demonstrate that it is really fiction.
*Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. Coli, with 5 billion years in which to produce it.
His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. Coli contain over a trillion (1012) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells). Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of 120 mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At least 34 of those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3 nucleotides. Yet, *Eden pointed out, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result ruins the blood and kills the organism!
*George Wald stood up and explained that he had done extensive research on hemoglobin also, and discovered that if just ONE mutational change of any kind was made in it, the hemoglobin would not function properly. For example, the change of one amino acid out of 287 in hemoglobin causes sickle-cell anemia. A glutamic acid unit has been changed to a valine unit, and, as a result, 25% of those suffering with this anemia die.
For more information on the 1966 Wistar Institute, we refer you to the book quoted above, by *Moorehead and *Kaplan. For much more on mathematical problems confronting evolutionary theory, see chapter 10 (DNA and Protein).
1969 MEETING A follow-up meeting was held in 1989 at Alpbach, but it only resulted in fruitless discussions in defense of evolution, angry words by some, desperation by others desiring some kind of "evolutionary" solution that scientists could ably defend, and additional presentations of evidence that evolutionary theory was unscientific. Although it was an important meeting, little space was given to it in the public press.
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have
expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless. When Arthur Koestler organized the Alpbsdr Symposium in 1989 called `Beyond Reductionism; for the express purpose of bringing together biologists critical of orthodox Darwinism. he was able to include in the list of participants many authorities of world stature, such as Swedish neurobiologist Holgar Hyden, zoologist Paul Weise and W. H. Thorpe, linguist David McNeil and child psychologist Jean Piaget. Koestler had this to say in his opening remarks: . . Invitations were confined to personalities in academic life with undisputed authority in their respective fields, who nevertheless share that holy discontent.
"At the Wistar Institute Symposium in 1966, which brought together mathematicians and biologists of impeccable academic credentials, Sir Peter Medawar acknowledged in his introductory address the existence of a wide spread feeling of skepticism over the role of chance in evolution, a feeling in his own words that: '. . something is missing from orthodox theory.' " *Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), pp. 32728.
THE 1880 MEETING For decades, men had to silently accept evolutionary theory in order to graduate with a doctorate and enter a field of science. Everywhere they turned in their chosen field, they saw evidence of creation, not evolution. An ever-increasing explosion of knowledge in the sciences only added to the massive weight of evidence in favor of creation science. But, at last, careful researchers were beginning to openly scoff at evolutionary theory in professional journals. Leading paleontologists, such as *Gould and *Stanley, were brazenly flaunting the foolishness of Darwin's legacy, but, unfortunately were substituting strange new fairy tales that were utterly opposed to reality, common sense, genetics, mutational studies, or mathematical probabilities. Something had to be done.
In October 1980, The world's leading evolutionists met in Chicago in a special Evolution Conference.
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution." *Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," in Science, November 21, 1980
"Microevolution" is change within a species, but this is adaptation and not evolution, as most experts will admit. "Macroevolution" is change between species, and must always lie at the heart of evolutionary theory. Without macroevolution, evolution does not occur. At the 1980 Chicago meeting:
"In October 1880, . . a conference was held in Chicago on one of the hottest issues in evolutionary studies. The respected magazine Science, organ of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, called it "an historic conference' which 'challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis'. 'We all went home with our heads spinning,' said one tint. 'Clashes of personality and academic sniping created palpable tension in an atmosphere that was fraught with genuine intellectual ferment,' Science reported." *G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery" (1983), p. 55.
Open attacks were hurled at evolutionary theory, and men desperate for solutions sought for answers.
"Feuds concerning the theory of evolution exploded . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from either side." *Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982). P. 12.
Yes, arguments took place; even some shouting. The conclusion of the majority was that there is no evidence of evolution, and we have no way of demonstrating that it is occurring now or has ever occurred.
"At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." *Roger Lewin,. op. cit.
*Newsweek for November 3, 1980, carried an article on the Chicago meeting. You may wish to read it for yourself. The large majority of evolutionists at the conference agreed that the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection could no longer be regarded by professionals as scientifically valid or tenable. Neither the origin nor the diversity of living creatures could be explained by evolutionary theory.
A year later, *Robert Jastrow, a leading scientist wrote:
"To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened . . Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act or creation." *Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981 p. 19.
Of the scientists attending that meeting, some in desperation decided that the only solution was to join *Gould and *Stanley in viewing hopeful monsters as the means by which species change occurred! To coin a phrase that might be worthy of Shakespeare, "Ah, desperation, thou hast made men mad."
The 1980 meeting was held in Chicago's Field Museum and was attended by 160 of the world's top paleontologists, anatomists, evolutionary geneticists, and developmental biologists.
"[Evolution] is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years . . Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists . . No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight [at. the meeting]." *Boyce Rensberqer. "Macroevolution Theory Stirs Hottest Debate Since Darwin,.. in The Riverside (California) Enterprise, p. E9; *Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," Science, November 21, 1980, pp. 883-887.
It was decided that no record would be kept of the sessions, in order not to give ammunition to the creationists. The rapidly accumulating mountain of evidence against evolutionary theory had brought a crisis of such proportions that most of those in attendance decided to repudiate a cardinal Darwinian doctrine; they agreed that small changes from generation to generation within a species could never accumulate to produce a new species.
In its place, the Alice-in-Wonderland theory of "punctuated equilibria" was given prominence. This view teaches that sudden, massive mutations produced "hopeful monsters" and made all our modern species. It was at the 1980 meeting that a majority of leading scientists present decided in desperation to adopt the basic "hopeful monster" theory of *Goldschmidt, *Stanley, and *Gould.
Men act as if they are chained to a cart and must go wherever it carries them. They dare not get off of it, for to do so is admit a terrible fact which they do not wish to consider.
"According to an article in Newsweek (November 3,1980), at a conference in mid-October at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History, the majority of 160 of the world's top paleontologists. anatomists, evolutionary geneticists and developmental biologists agreed to abandon Darwinian evolution in favor of punctuated equilibria, otherwise known as the hopeful monster theory.
"Apparently, Darwin's theory had become indefeasible to them, citing particularly the absence of intermediate fossils as the conflicting fact. The hopeful monster theory is a retreat to what appears to be reliable geological evidence, namely, the general stringing-out of fossils from 'simple' to 'complex' in the rock strata." Randall Hedtke, "Asa Gray Vindicated, .. in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1981, p. 74.
THE 1981 MEETING The following year, still another important meeting of evolutionists was held. At this meeting, held at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, *Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, in a paper that he presented to the assembly, declared before his peers that evolution was "positively anti-knowledge," and added that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth."
The same year, another scientist wrote this:
"An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all.. Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials." *Michael Ruse, "Darwin's Theory: An Exercise in Science,.. In New Scientist; June 25, 1981, p. 828.
Commenting on the crisis that had come to the evolutionary camp, *Niles Eldredge, head of the Department of Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, later wrote this:
"The doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of evolutionary ~s last twenty years has inflamed passions . . There has been a total lack of agreement even within the warring camps. . Things are really in an uproar these days . . Sometimes it seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary] theme as there are individual biologists." *Niles Eldredge, "Evolutionary Housecleaning," in Natural History, February 1982, pp. 78, 81.
THE 1984 MEETING At a 1984 Seminar held at Cambridge University in England (April 30-May 2), *Stephen Gould's monster theories were discussed.
*Karl Popper's highly-regarded theory of science was also discussed (see chapter 37, Philosophy of Education). In brief, he says that a theory must be testable, and either be shown by experiment to be valid, or be capable of being falsified, disproven. Once-only events cannot be tested, and non testable theories may be true but are not a part of science.
On this basis, evolution is not scientific, for none of its theories are either testable, occurring today, nor supported by any evidence. In contrast, creation may not be occurring today, but it is supported by the evidence, as we have repeatedly seen in this set of books.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
PANSPERMIA As if hopeful monsters were not enough, *Francis Crick, the scientist who shared a Nobel prize for the discovery of DNA's structure, wrote a book in 1981, declaring that "directed panspermia" is the answer. People on another planet sent a rocket down here, with living creatures on it, in order to populate our earth!
Crick admits that this only moves the puzzle back a notch, for if we cannot figure out life could originate and evolve here, how could it do it anywhere else in the universe? In addition, there is the very serious problem of transportation. Distances are so vast in outer space, that anything traveling from planets circling other stars would have had to journey for thousands of years before arriving here. Aside from the fact that no animals live thousands of years, the rocket ship could not possibly hold enough food, oxygen, etc. to meet its needs over such a vast period of time.
In his book, *Crick admits that chemically, mathematically, and biologically, evolution is impossible here on earth. This strange theory was earlier called "cosmozola," and represents a final gasping effort to salvage a theory which a flood of 20th century scientific evidence has overwhelmed.
*Crick, one of the most prestigious scientists of our day, bemoans the shambles scientific discoveries have made of evolutionary theory, and pleads that the only solution must be a rocket ship that went on a "10,000-year voyage" from some far-off planet, carrying with it living creatures to our world. And then he adds:
"What is so frustrating for our present purpose [of trying to prove that evolution could possibly have occurred on our own planet] is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events. . An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." *Francis Crick, Life Itself (1981), p. 87-88.
For additional information see the appendix topic, "Panspermia. "
LAWSUITS After the Scopes trial in 1925, additional lawsuits--usually instituted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have been initiated. These have generally centered around public school curriculum controversies. After Scopes, any attempt to get creationism back into the public schools--even on a strictly scientific, two-model basis--has been invariably rebuffed in the courts. This has occurred in Indiana, California, New York, Florida, Arizona, Louisiana, and other states.
One of these, the Louisiana "creation law," finally reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987. Speaking for the 7-2 majority, Justice Brennan wrote: "The preeminent purpose for the Louisiana legislature was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind." On this basis--that creationism is religious--the Louisiana law was thrown out.
For much more on this, see chapters 30 and 34 (The Scopes Trial and Evolution and Education).
SUMMARY
THE SITUATION TODAY Here are three statements by reputable scientists that summarize the climate of doubt among scientists that exists today:
"The doctrine of continuity [evolutionary theory] has always necessitated a retreat from pure empiricism [facts and scientific testing], and contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the antievolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach. " *Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 353.
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologist and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and in its turn is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reasons. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without.
"What is even more surprising is that these doubts are arising simultaneously from several independent branches of science. . [There] has come a doubt about whether Darwinism is, strictly speaking, scientific. Is the theory actually testable--as good theories must be? Is the idea of natural selection based on a tautology, a simple restatement of some initial assumptions? From within biology the doubts have come from scientists in half a dozen fields. Many paleontologists are unconvinced by the supposed gradualness of Darwinian evolution; they feel that the evidence points to abrupt change--or else to no change at all. Some geneticists question Darwin's explanation for the 'origin of species', feeling that natural selection may have virtually nothing to do with the events that lead to the appearance of new species. Among other scientists, for example, among immunologists, embryologists, and taxonomists, the same feeling seems to be growing: there is a lot more to evolution than Charles Darwin envisaged, and even the modern synthesis of evolutionary ideas--called neo-Darwinism--seems inadequate in many respects.
"In the past ten years has emerged a new breed of biologists who are considered scientifically respectable, but who have their doubts about Darwinism." *B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), P. 10-11.
"Today, however, the picture is entirely different. More and more workers are showing signs of dissatisfaction with the synthetic theory. Some are attacking its philosophical foundations, arguing that the reason that it has been so amply confirmed is simply that it is unfalsifiable; with a little ingenuity any observation can be made to appear consistent with it. Others have been deliberately setting out to work in just those areas in which neo-Darwinism is least comfortable, like the problem of the gaps in the fossil record or the mechanisms of non-Mendelian inheritance. Still others, notably some systernatists, have decided to ignore the theory altogether, and to carry on their work without an a priori assumption [a decision made prior to analysis or investigation] about how evolution has occurred. Perhaps most significant of all, there is now appearing a stream of articles and books defending the synthetic theory. It was not so long ago that hardly anyone thought this was necessary.
"All the signs are that evolution theory is in crisis, and that a change is on the way." *M. W. Ho and *P. Saunders "Preface," to Beyond NeoDarwinism (1984), p. ix.
NOT INCLUDED HERE In this historical chapter we have not discussed several historical aspects of the subject.
1 - The history of the origin of matter and stellar evolution theories. . We have not here mentioned leading theorists or opponents of origin of matter and stellar evolution theories, such as *George Gamow and *Harold Urey, *Fred Hoyle, and *Halton Arp. These were discussed in detail in chapters 1 to 3, and in the historical appendix at the end of chapter 3.
2 - The history of evolutionary impact on society. Nor have we dealt with the devastation that evolutionary theory has wrought on 20th century thinking, culture, and morals. Devoted evolutionists have applied the mode and morality of evolutionary theory to social, educational, psychological, political, and economic fields. This includes such men as: *Ernst Haeckel, *Karl Marx, *Friedrich Nietzche, *Sigmund Freud, *Joseph Stalin, *Frederich von Bernhardi, *Adolf Hitler, *Benito Mussolini, *Herbert Spencer, and three who co-mingled Marxism with Western evolutionary theory: *Alexander Oparin, *J.B.S. Haldane, and *Steven Jay Gould. This will be found in chapters 334.
3 - Philosophy of science. *Karl Popper's philosophy of science has also been significant. That is discussed in chapter 37.
4 - Historical dating. The story of the devious methods used to change historical dates will be found in chapter 35.
5 - Origin of life research. The foundering efforts m prove that life originated from non-living substances will be found in chapter 9.
8 - Hominid research. The struggles and frauds used to locate man's ancestors is traced in chapter 18.
7 - The 1925 evolution trial. A detailed account of the circus at Dayton, known as the "Scopes Trial," and its impact on legal decisions in America, is given in chapter 30.
Certain other historical topics, such as the history of research in genetics, mutations, and embryos, are discussed both in this present chapter and elsewhere in this set of books.
8 - History of evolution in education. An analysis of the inroads of evolution into public education is discussed in chapter 34.
SUMMARY The following brief overview catagorizes some of the most important evolutionists and creationists of the past two centuries.
The most influential evolutionists of the 18th century were *Comte de Buffon (1707-1788) with his suggestion that species have descended from different species, and *Jean-Baptists Lamarck (1744-1829), with his theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics.
The most influential evolutionists of the 19th century were *Charles Lyell (1797-1875) with his uniformitarian theory, his monumental book (Principles of Geology [1830-1833]), and his urging of *Darwin to finish his book; *Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and his book, Origin of the Species (1859); *Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), and his fraudulent defense of Darwinism and recapitulation on the continent; and *Thomas Huxley (18251895), because of his aggressive defense of Darwin in England.
The most influential evolutionists of the 20th century have been *John Scopes (1901-1970), *Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958), and *Stephen Jay Gould.
The most influential evolutionary attackers of Darwinism and/or neo-Darwinism in the 20th century have been *Austin H. Clark (1880-1954), *Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958), *Stephen Jay Gould, and *Steven M. Stanley.
The most influential advocate of creation in the early 19th century was William Paley (17431805) in his book, Natural Theology (1802). Paley's outstanding book on design as proof of creation could be ridiculed or ignored, but not answered.
The most influential creation advocate of the first half of the 20th century was George McCready Price (1870-1963). His books, published from 1942 to 1956, were powerful, incisive attacks on evolutionary theory.
The most influential creation advocate of the second half of the 20th century has been Henry M. Morris. His books, articles, lectures, and leadership of Institute for Creation Research have combined to have an overarching effect on public opinion.
The most influential creation scientists of the 19th century were Gregor Mendel (18221884) with his Mendelian law of genetics (see chapter 10), Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) with his experimental evidence against spontaneous generation (see chapter 9), and Lord Kelvin (William Thomson), with his part in the formulation of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics (see chapter 25).
The most influential creation scientists of the 20th century have included Thomas Berries, with his research into the decay of earth's magnetic core (see chapter 6); and Robert Gentry, with his research into radioactive halos in granite (see chapter 5).
Of the evolutionists listed above, it is of interest that very few were research scientists. In fact, the ranks of evolution has not produced one research scientist who has provided strong evidence in its favor! This is not because evolutionists do not have excellent researchers in their ranks, but because the evidence is just not to be found. The research discoveries of such men as *August Weismann (1834-1914), *Hugo de Vries (1848-1935) and *Thomas Hunt Morgan (1886-1945) only weakened the foundations of evolution. Everything has worked against evolution and nothing for it with the powerful exception of four non-scientific techniques: (1) ignoring or hiding the evidence, (2) wishful theories, (3) ridicule and name-calling, and (4) political, educational, legal, and employment coercion. The history of evolutionary theory has been a history of failure, fraud, fantasy, misstatements, and cover-up of evidence.
1 - A history of failure: The failure of natural selection, recapitulation, mutations, fossils, genetics, strata, hominid bones, primitive atmosphere, useless organs, radiodating, carbon-14, and social evolution.
2 - A history of fraud: of fraud: * Ernst Haeckel's fraudulent charts, *Thomas Huxley's fraudulent Monera, *Dorr Quarry's fraudulent Archaeopteryx, *Othniel Marsh's fraudulent horse series, *William Dawson's fraudulent Piltdown man, and *Clarence Darrow's fraudulent legal defense at Dayton.
3 - A history of fantasy. Origin of matter and stellar evolution theories have been filled to the brim with fantasy. A dreamy idea is thought up and then pawned off as scientific truth. Dating methodsstrata, fossils, radiodating, and ocean coreare filled with them! Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions; and if one fails, the dating falls to pieces. Then there is continental drift and paleomagnetism! If people but knew the facts, they would laugh the scientists to shame.
4 - A history of misstatements and coverups: The dark peppered moth as a "different species," the extinct dinosaur as an evidence of "evolution," Darwin's finches as "new species," the idea that "natural selection" proves anything--much less means anything, * Wallace's theory that "survival of the fittest" means evolutionary origins or change, the "fivebone" similarity theory as providing any evidence of "evolution." The truth about fossil gaps, nonevolving fossil species, missing strata, and overthrusts constitutes one of the biggest cover-ups in the history of science. And then there is the truth about molecular biology, DNA, protein and enzyme synthesis, and mathematical probabilities.
In the above list, we have not even begun to plumb the depths of the failures, hauls, fantasy, and cover-ups. Any thoughtful scientist could add startling additions to the list.
Among the leading scientific discoveries since the writing of Charles Darwin's Origin, which have had a part to shaking evolutionary theory to its foundations, would include these:
(1) The discovery of the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics placed an insurmountable wall before any possibility for the "positive, and progressive effects" of evolutionary change "working through random action" to possibly occur (chapter 25).
(2) The cumulative discovery from a variety of fields that so-called "natural selection" (which is nothing more than subspecies random changes) could never provide the mechanism to produce cross-species evolution. This discovery led to the switch-over to neo-Darwinism with its emphasis on mutations as the key mechanism (chapter 13).
(3) The discovery that mutations could not accomplish the task either, since they are too rare, too random, and always deleterious. In addition, never, never, never have mutations--singly or in massive amounts--produced cross-species changes (chapter 14).
(4) Massive quantities of fossils have been excavated, and they only reinforce what Darwin already knew: There are only gaps between species throughout all past fossilized history. When species are first found in the rocks, they are totally in place both in completeness and complexity (chapter 17).
(5) Gregor Mendel's discovery of the stability of the gene, not widely known in the scientific world until 1900, brought troubling premonitions of future disaster for the theory (chapter 10).
(6) Successive discoveries of the chromosome and gene added to the genetic crisis, but the discovery of DNA and its astoundingly stable and utterly complex code--fully unveiled the massive "genetic barrier" to cross-species change (chapter 10).
(7) Molecular biology, with microscopic discoveries in protein, the cell, enzymes, and much, much more, revealed all too clearly the immense complexity of living creatures (chapters 9-11).
(8) The impossibility of life originating from seawater and sand in any kind of theoretical "primitive environment" on our planet--now or earlier (chapter 9).
(9) The fact that never, never, never--now or earlier--has any species ever been known to change into another species. Yes, there is extinction of dinosaurs and other wildlife, but never a new species through successive transitional forms from another species (chapters 1 &17).
(10) Celestial discoveries in regard to the complexity of stellar orbits, galactic organization, quasars, non-gravitational attraction in outer space of floating gas, flaws in the background radiation and speed theory of red-shift, and the *Arp discoveries--have crushed the foundations of matter and stellar evolution theories (chapters 14).
(11) Continuing vacuity of accomplishment in the search for man's ancestors (chapter 18).
(12) The discoveries of Thomas Barnes in regard to the decay of earth's magnetic core (chapter 6), and Robert Gentry in regard to polonium halos in granite, along with the powerful implications of both discoveries (chapter 5).
(13) Access to high-megahertz capacity computers for office use by mathematicians has enabled them to come up with computer-generated printouts of the mathematical probabilities of evolution occurring. In earlier decades probability theory as applied to evolution was more inexact. But by the late 1970s it was obvious that evolutionary origins and cross-species changes in living creatures could never occur--in trillions of years (chapter 10).
Many other immense hurdles could be cited--such as the discovery of flowering plant pollen in the Cambrian level and awesome problem of "younger" strata beneath layers of "older" strata--but the above thirteen items should suffice to provide a glimpse into the nightmare faced by modern evolutionary theory.
Dedicated evolutionists are running scared. Their only hope is, through economic and political coercion, to keep the truth from the public and maintain the ascendancy of their errors in the educational halls, workplaces, and public media.
You have just completed
Chapter 29 History of Evolutionary Theory Part 2