The Three Failures of Creationism. Walter Fitch
theory of evolution. In The Origin of Species, his most famous book, Darwin laid out the evidence demonstrating the evolution of organisms. Darwin, however, accomplished much more, and something much more important, than demonstrating evolution. Namely, Darwin provided a scientific account of the design of organisms, which he accomplished with the discovery of natural selection. The diversity and complexity of organisms, as well as their marvelous contrivances (eyes for seeing, wings for flying, gills for breathing in water) could now be explained as the result of natural processes.
Traditional Christianity had explained the design of organisms as the intentional result of the Creator. Theologians and religious authors argued, for example, that the human eye is as complex a contrivance as a watch or a telescope, with several parts all required to fit together precisely in order to achieve vision. There was, however, a seemingly insurmountable difficulty. If God is the designer of life, whence the lion's cruelty, the snake's poison, and the parasites that secure their existence only by destroying their hosts.
The world abounds in physical catastrophes, such as floods, droughts, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and tsunamis that kill thousands and thousands of innocent people. If God had designed the world, it would seem that He would be accountable for these destructive phenomena. Modern science came to the rescue. The scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries demonstrated that physical events are built into the structure of the universe. The processes by which galaxies and stars came into existence, the planets are formed, the continents move, the weather and the change of seasons happen, and floods and earthquakes occur are natural processes, not events specifically designed by God for punishing or rewarding humans. The extreme violence of supernova explosions and the chaotic frenzy at galactic centers are outcomes of the laws of physics, not the design of a fearsome deity. A person of faith could accept that the world was created by God without the need to attribute to God's direct action the awesome catastrophes that occur in the natural world.
The scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, often called the Copernican Revolution, had left living organisms out of explanation by natural processes. Seemingly, as pointed out by religious authors in the past, organisms give evidence of design, and wherever there is design, there is a designer. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection extends the explanation of natural phenomena by natural processes to the design of organisms. In The Origin of Species, published in i859, Darwin laid out the evidence demonstrating the evolution of organisms. Much more important for intellectual history is that The Origin of Species is, first and foremost, a sustained effort to solve the problem of how to account scientifically for the adaptations or “design” of organisms. Darwin sought to explain the design of organisms, their complexity, diversity, and marvelous contrivances, as results of natural processes. Darwin brought about the evidence for evolution, because evolution was a necessary consequence of his theory of design. The Origin of Species is most important because it completed the Copernican Revolution, initiated three centuries earlier, and thereby radically changed our conception of the universe and the place of mankind in it.
The advances of physical science encompassed by the Copernican Revolution had driven mankind's conception of the universe to a sort of intellectual schizophrenia, which persisted well into the mid-nineteenth century. Scientific explanations, derived from natural laws, dominated the world of nonliving matter, on the earth as well as in the heavens. However, supernatural explanations, depending on the unfathomable deeds of the Creator, were accepted in order to account for the origin and configuration of living creatures—the most diversified, complex, and interesting realities of the world. It was Darwin's genius that resolved this intellectual inconsistency. Darwin completed the Copernican Revolution by bringing the design of organisms into the realm of science, as an outcome of natural processes governed by natural laws.
The Three Failures of Creationism: Logic, Rhetoric, and Science is a pertinent introduction to the logical, philosophical, methodological, and empirical issues that arise in the study of evolution, particularly relevant to readers who may be concerned about the scientific standing of the theory of evolution and how it may relate to religious faith. There is much to learn in this short book, all explained in clear and incisive language.
The book speaks for itself. I will, however, add one further consideration addressed to people of faith. It is my view that attributing the properties and characteristics of organisms to specific design by God is not compatible with faith in the benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The God of revelation and faith is a God of love and mercy, and of wisdom. A major burden was removed from the shoulders of believers when convincing evidence was advanced that the design of organisms need not be attributed to the immediate agency of the Creator. If we claim that organisms and their parts have been specifically designed by God, we have to account for the cruelty of predators and parasites and for the incompetent design of the human jaw, the narrowness of the birth canal, and our poorly designed backbone, less than fittingly suited for walking upright. Most disturbing is the following consideration. About 20 percent of all recognized human pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage during the first two months of pregnancy. This misfortune amounts at present to more than 20 million spontaneous abortions worldwide every year. Do we want to blame God for the deficiencies in the pregnancy process? Most of us might rather attribute this monumental mishap to the clumsy ways of the evolutionary process than to the incompetence of an intelligent designer.
Creationists and proponents of “Intelligent Design” are surely well-meaning persons. But people of faith would do well to acknowledge Darwin's revolution and accept natural selection as the process that accounts for the design of organisms, as well as for the dysfunctions, oddities, cruelties, and sadism that pervade the world of life. As the distinguished theologian Aubrey Moore already stated in 1891: “Darwinism appeared, and under the guise of a foe, did the work of a friend. It has conferred upon philosophy and religion an inestimable benefit.” Darwin's theory of evolution is one of the great scientific developments of all times. People of faith may also see it as a great gift to religion.
Francisco J. AyalaUniversity of California, Irvine
CHAPTER ONE
Logic, Logical Fallacies,
and Rhetoric
In writing this book, it was my intention that it be for people who have no irrevocable position on at least some of the differences of opinion between creationists and evolutionists, but who would like a view of those arguments that is relatively fair. That I have not totally accomplished, as I am clearly an evolutionist and believe in the naturalist (materialist) view, whereas creationists do not. And therein lies the difference. I hope to have produced in this book a clear differentiation of the reasons for what evolutionists believe and what creationists believe, written at a level that intelligent high school seniors or college freshmen or sophomores can readily understand without their having taken any biology or theology courses. I am targeting that group because, in my opinion, it is the failure of scientists to present clearly what they do and why that has caused so many problems in our schools and courts. I welcome criticism from all parties, especially where I have done injustice to any view, and if this book survives to a second edition, I will correct those errors. I have included a short glossary to aid the reader in understanding some of the terms used in this book.
Not all biologists will necessarily agree with 100 percent of what I have to say. Nevertheless, I believe that the vast majority of evolutionists will agree with almost everything evolutionary that I present. Similarly, not all creationists will agree among themselves that my representation of their view is correct or complete, although the degree to which creationists agree among themselves may often be much less so. The point is that too often one side denounces the other for an opinion that has been given by a member of the opposing camp, even though the opinion being denounced has become rare and unrepresentative of current creationist or evolutionary thought, as the case may be.
Generalities are not intended to be 100 percent applicable, but if something is true 99 percent of the time, that something accordingly is important and frequently not refutable by describing a single exception. This is an example of the straw man fallacy, which takes an unrepresentative view of one's opponents and attacks that