Weighed and Found Wanting

A critical analysis of The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking andWas Life Created?

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 UnportedLicense. Attribute to JB. To view a copy of this license, visit

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

1.1 Introduction

In 2010, The Watchtower Bible and Tract Soci-ety began printing and distributing two publi-cations that address an alleged deficiency at theheart of the modern scientific enterprise, namelythe field of biology. The two works, titled WasLife Created? and The Origin of Life - FiveQuestions Worth Asking, present various criti-cisms of the evidence supporting biological evo-lution and argue that the origin and diversity oflife is better explained by a supernatural creatorgod, specifically the God of the Bible.

In many ways, the case presented will be fa-miliar to those who have read earlier religiouslymotivated writings targeting the theory of evo-lution. Included are standard creationist tropeslike the assertions that life is too complex andwonderful to be explained by natural processes,that the emergence of novel species is impossible,and that “true” religion and “actual” science arefully reconcilable.

However, there are some unique features ofthe material that should be noted. For ex-ample, the editors clearly avoid any politicallycharged language. Absent is the phrase ‘intel-ligent design’ and even terms like ‘creationist’and ‘creationism’ are used very sparingly. At-tempts by other religious groups to force cre-ationism into the public school science curricu-lum are dismissed. So-called “fundamentalists”are ridiculed as much for their disregard of sci-entific evidence as for their “incorrect” inter-pretation of Scripture. Additionally, an effortwas made to increase the transparency of thesources and quotations cited. Many of the scien-tific claims reference a bibliography, and severalquotes from biologists feature an asterisk andthe caveat that the person mentioned actually

accepts evolution.∗ Lastly, both documents fo-cus primarily on scientific and logical arguments.While the Bible, God, and religion are featuredmultiple times, they clearly play a secondary rolein the presentation.Many of the above mentioned editorial ten-

dencies are ostensibly honorable. It may even bethat the publishers are responding to complaintsabout their past writings dealing with the samesubject. Despite these efforts and their motiva-tion, the actual arguments presented fail to hittheir target. The reasons for this are predictable.The logical appeals are confused and struc-tural fallacies abound. The supposed “evidenceagainst evolution” is manufactured from sciencethat has been misunderstood, misapplied, or leftconspicuously incomplete. As is often the casewith people who are more accustomed to argu-ing about prophecy then phylogeny, the authorscompletely fail to grasp the purpose, method,and goals of science. The quotes, notwithstand-ing attempts at transparency, remain out of con-text and grossly misleading. The result is al-together unconvincing. This paper will addressthe specific claims made and evaluate the con-clusions offered.

1.2 The Nature of Science

In order to grasp the considerable flaws in WasLife Created? and The Origin of Life (hereafterreferred to as WLC and TOL respectively), onemust have a basic understanding of the funda-mental nature of science. Science involves ob-serving empirical facts about reality and using

∗Readers are left to wonder how it is that a scientist

can be intelligent and honest enough to utter the superfi-

cially creation-friendly quote while simultaneously work-

ing in the field of evolutionary biology.

1

them to formulate coherent theories to explainnatural phenomena. New measurements and ob-servations are continually being made, and there-fore more facts made available. Hence, theoriesmust be continuously revised, expanded, or su-perseded. This is not a weakness, rather it isthe secret to the success of the scientific method.The fact that scientific knowledge is always opento newer and better evidence ensures that thetheories produced are as close to truth as cur-rently possible.It must be noted that the sense in which the

word ‘theory’ is used here differs greatly fromthe way it is often used in everyday speech. Incolloquial terms, a theory is a guess, a conjec-ture, or maybe just a hunch. Many laypeopleassume that science progresses from a hypoth-esis, to a theory, and finally to a law. This isa source of great misunderstanding which is ex-emplified when people state that “evolution isjust (or simply) a theory”, implying that if sci-entists were actually confident in their findingsthey would call it the Law or Fact of Evolution.In actuality, facts are the raw material on

which science operates. Factual observations areimportant, but they are not the highest goal ofscience. Science seeks to understand why naturebehaves in a certain manner. Understanding re-quires the application of an orderly process togather and evaluate evidence. This process canbe called the scientific method.The scientific method usually proceeds in the

following manner. A particular set of facts leadsa scientist to pose a hypothesis. A hypothesis isa conditional statement in the format “if A hap-pens, then B will follow.” Suggestions for poten-tial experiments flow naturally from this struc-ture. An experiment can be arranged such thatA is brought about and the scientist can observeif B is the result. Hypotheses, however, do not

contain any explanations. At this stage, nothingcan be said about whether A caused B, or whatmechanism connects A and B. A hypothesis canbe useful, but it does not impart understanding.The same can be said for a law. A law is a

simple description of some physical phenomena.For example, Newton’s law of universal gravita-tion describes the gravitational force generatedbetween two objects. It does not explain whatgravity is, or why it attracts things instead of,say, repelling them. Nonetheless, this law is use-ful for calculating the trajectories of many ob-jects, including cannon balls and satellites. Thisis what a law really is, a generalized descriptionthat can be applied in normal circumstances. Al-though they are reliable tools for predicting nat-ural phenomena, laws are not the “final word”on nature, and they are not accurate in all situ-ations.Once a hypothesis has been formulated and an

experiment performed, the results of the exper-iment will either support the hypothesis or not.Assuming the observations were positive, a sci-entist may start to form a theory to explain thedata. A good theory will provide a coherent ex-planation for the data that have been collectedand will suggest new hypotheses to be tested.In this way, a theory constantly branches outto incorporate an ever increasing selection of ex-perimental results, being shaped and trimmeddepending on the success or failure of the ex-periments. Strong, well supported theories arethe crown jewels of science. That does not meanthey are static objects beyond the scope of fu-ture revision, but simply that they provide thebest understanding of the world given currentknowledge. There is no end to the scientific pro-cess. At no point will a scientist stop investigat-ing and claim to possess “absolute truth”. Therewill always be some piece of data that is not un-

2

derstood yet, a question that has yet to be an-swered, a phenomenon that baffles. Science con-tinues, rejoicing in the prospect of the unknownand constantly improving its theories.

1.3 Evaluating Explanations

With a hold on the basic nature of science asa continual process striving after ever-improvingexplanations, how should a person evaluate thequality of a scientific theory? Unlike other av-enues of human interest, science has no placefor arguments from authority, antiquity, or even“common sense”. For many thousands of years,humans believed that the sun circled around astationary Earth. Respectable elders advocatedthis view, rooted in time immemorial, and theissue went uncontested. How could one arguethe contrary, when it is intuitively clear the theSun is moving and that the ground is not? Theanswer is that none of these justifications areconsidered scientific evidence. Old ideas, putforward by intelligent people, are discarded fre-quently and science consistently shows that na-ture is often subtle enough to mislead the crudefaculty of common sense.

Clearly, different evaluative criteria are re-quired to determine the merit of a theory. Fourfeatures must be assessed: explanatory scope,simplicity, plausibility and testability. Explana-tory scope is how many facts or observations atheory can explain. The broader the scope, themore powerful and useful the theory. Simplicityinvolves how many independent concepts mustbe proposed as part of the theory. A simple the-ory has as few mechanisms and postulates as re-quired to cover all the data. A single, elegantidea that unifies many seemingly disparate factsis better than a series of separate explanations

for each individual case. By reducing the num-ber of theoretical components to a minimum, theopportunity for one of those elements to be in-correct is reduced. The principle is analogous tothe fact that a computer is more likely to mal-function than a pen, due chiefly to the number ofparts required to make a computer work. Plau-sibility describes how well a particular theoryfits in with other pieces of scientific knowledge.For example, virtually every natural process ob-served conserves energy. That is, whatever en-ergy is put in, exactly the same amount will comeout, though possibly in different forms. If a newtheory is proposed that violates conservation ofenergy, it should be subjected to extreme skepti-cism. A theory should sit comfortably alongsideother scientific ideas, and not differ radically inits assumptions or character. The final criterionis testability. Scientific theories must be testable.If a theory proposes some phenomena that are,in principle, impossible to observe, there is verylittle tethering it to reality. Similarly, a theorymust be able to be proven false. If any possibleresult can be explained away using a special ex-ception, then in a real sense the theory has failedto explain anything at all. If untestable, unfalsi-fiable theories were allowed, it would be possibleto construct an infinite number of them, and noexplanations would ever be had.

1.4 The Limits of Science

In light of these criteria, supernatural expla-nations are ruled out of scientific investigation.This is not a prejudice against supernaturalcauses, but an inherent limitation of science.Why? Because supernatural causation, or claim-ing ‘God did it’ as a scientific conclusion, fails bynearly every measure of what constitutes a good

3

theory.It is reasonable to propose that God has maxi-

mal explanatory scope, but the nature of the ex-planation is vague. When God causes an animalto exist, is it the same process as when he createsan angel, or a planet? How does this processwork? While it is easy to answer any mysteryby invoking an omnipotent power, and therebyyield a huge explanatory scope, upon scrutinythese explanations quickly fracture into many illdefined sub-explanations.Simultaneously, these smaller explanations re-

duce the simplicity of supernatural causation.Additionally, even if a minimal Creator is theonly thing being proposed, this is not the typeof God the majority of people believe in. Mostreligions incorporate an active God who inter-venes in history, reacts to human actions, andmakes proclamations about morality and the af-terlife. All of these extra details lead to a verycomplex theory.What about plausibility? Supernatural beings

are, by definition, not natural and do not obeynatural laws. Hence, all current natural knowl-edge is useless for evaluating the actions of a non-natural actor. Because the supernatural is notconstrained by the natural, it is impossible to de-termine plausibility. Does God creating life fit inwith what supernatural beings are known to do?No one can say, because there is no backgroundknowledge about the supernatural.The final and most important element of sci-

ence is testability. Scientific claims must betestable, but God is not testable. Individualclaims about a god may be tested, but it isalways possible to invent a special case thatsidesteps the evidence. For example, studieshave shown that intercessory prayer does nothelp hospitalized people heal faster. [19] How-ever, believers can simply assert that God does

not heal people when they are part of a scien-tific study, thereby avoiding all objective empir-ical methods. Similar arguments can be used toavoid any piece of evidence. One can also con-tinually move the divine back one step to main-tain supernatural causation. Perhaps someonebelieves that Zeus causes lightning. A scien-tist could explain that lightning is actually staticelectricity resulting from the friction of particlesof precipitation in a cloud. The believer can sim-ply incorporate this information by claiming thatstatic electricity is important, but that Zeus isthe real “cause” of the lightning. It is impossibleto scientifically validate or invalidate this theorybecause it is beyond the methods of science.

Science can only investigate natural eventsand causes, not because of an arbitrary biasagainst the divine, but because the tools of sci-ence cannot handle the supposed supernaturalrealm. For this reason, any claim that God isthe best scientific explanation for some fact isa category error. A Creator may exist, and hemay have designed life, but scientific methodscannot confirm or disconfirm this claim. Sciencecan only play a role when religious people makestatements about the natural world. These dec-larations can be tested and shown to be true orfalse. As always, a divine miracle may be in-voked to get out of a sticky situation, but thismove immediately ejects a claim from the scien-tific arena. This essay was not written to provethat it is impossible that God created life, butit will show that specific creationist claims arelacking scientific support.

1.5 The Scientific Community

Abstract principles about what science is, whatit tries to accomplish, and how its results should

4

be viewed are crucial to understanding the role itplays in helping to understand reality. It is alsoimportant to be familiar with the way that sci-ence is actually performed in the real world. Toomany people think of science either as some ethe-real practice that could never be understood bythe average person or as the mechanistic, unin-spired cataloging of natural events. To be sure,gaining a competent understanding of a partic-ular scientific field takes years of diligent workand the job can involve tedious and painstak-ing repetition, but the core feature of science iscreativity. Scientific problems can be so compli-cated that only creative, intellectually resource-ful people will make great breakthroughs.Science is also not an individual pursuit. It is,

by necessity, a community undertaking. No oneperson has enough time, funding, intelligence orinterest to ‘go it alone’. A community is also re-quired to verify ideas and balance out individualbiases. This is accomplished through the processof peer review. If a scientist makes an excitingdiscovery or formulates a new theory, they sub-mit a paper detailing their findings and have itanonymously reviewed by a selection of people inthe same field. The reviewers probe the methodand idea behind the paper and can recommendchanges or clarification. This greatly improvesthe quality of the work and facilitates anotherkey requirement in science: repeatability. If onlyone person can demonstrate a certain result, itis quite likely that some unnoticed factor is cor-rupting the experiment. By publicly announcingexperimental findings, other scientists are able torepeat the experiment or use them as the basisfor their own investigations.Theories and techniques that are widely re-

peated and validated usually lead to a scien-tific consensus on a particular topic. A consen-sus does not guarantee that a theory is correct

(nothing can), but it does demonstrate that aparticular theory has good supporting evidenceand compelling arguments in its favor. Minor-ity opinions always exist, and over time some ofthem will end up as majority opinions. Whenthis transition occurs, it does not happen ran-domly. Minority views gain acceptance by be-ing published in peer-reviewed journals, fittingthe evidence better than the current perspective,and making daring predictions that are validatedby experiment. For this reason, a scientific con-sensus is generally representative of the best un-derstanding available in a certain field.

Science is a collective, empirical, evidence-driven tool for determining how nature works.It fully acknowledges that it is not infallible, andin fact embraces this fact to enable constant im-provement. Scientific thinking is incredibly use-ful, both in practical matters and in general asa method of maintaining a reasonable picture ofreality. It is this method that will be applied toanalyze the many suspect claims made in WLCand TOL.

2.1 Look for Answers

The Origin of Life opens with a quick vignettedescribing a student who feels uncomfortablein science class because he has been taught byhis parents that evolution is simply an unsup-ported “theory”. The scenario depicts the schoolteacher as claiming that evolution has “freedmankind from superstitious beliefs” and solicit-ing comments from class. Not only is this sit-uation unlikely, but it immediately establishesthe main talking point of the article: evolutionhas no basis in fact and a mere mention of thetopic should elicit a negative reaction because itchallenges previously held beliefs.

5

Laudably, the author recommends that eachperson should look at the evidence for themselvesand determine whether evolution or creationismis supported by the scientific facts. Unfortu-nately, the writer immediately makes a misstepby stating that the purpose of the text is to ex-amine the scientific claims surrounding the originof life. This is a serious category error. The the-ory of evolution explains the diversity of life, nothow the first cells formed. To criticize it on thisbasis is akin to complaining that a fork is notvery good at combing hair and concluding thattherefore forks must not be good for anything atall. That is not what a fork is for. Likewise,evolution is not concerned with explaining theorigin of life. Biological evolution requires thatsome self-replicating genetic material already ex-ists. From that basis it describes how variationand natural selection can lead to improvementsin these molecules and eventually to many dif-ferent types of life forms.The topic that is actually being discussed is

what scientists call abiogenesis, or life from non-life. Abiogenesis seeks to understand how thefirst biologically important molecules were syn-thesized and how these molecules came togetherto form a type of life. The conflation of abio-genesis and evolution is common but misleading.The pivot from one to the other is a rhetoricalmaneuver designed to take the normal academicjousting in a scientifically controversial field likeabiogenesis and shift it to an established area likeevolution. Abiogenesis is a relatively young andlightly funded field of research. No broad consen-sus exists, and much work remains for the future.Fortunately, this is exactly the type of situationin which science is most useful. If everythingabout nature was clear and obvious, painstak-ing research would never be required. Scientists,unlike their supernaturally-inclined critics, are

not afforded the luxury of sitting on the side-lines endlessly reiterating how difficult a partic-ular problem is. They take the current state ofknowledge and push ever forward. It should notbe surprising that scientists currently lack a tidyaccount of a particular series of chemical reac-tions that could have taken place in a multitudeof different environments billions of years ago.Neither should this fact lead anyone to concludethat some external agent is necessary to solvethe problem.

2.2 The ‘God-of-the-gaps’

Religious attacks on this front represent a logi-cal fallacy commonly known as the ‘god of-the-gaps’. If a certain phenomenon is not currentlyunderstood, God is used as an explanation. Assoon as a naturalistic understanding is gained,God slips out of that gap and finds another. Be-cause science will always have unanswered ques-tions, this process can continue ad infinitum.The failure to have a natural explanation at anyparticular time does not show that an explana-tion is impossible to discover. It certainly doesnot support the claim that a supernatural forceis required. The history of science demonstratesrepeatedly that events and processes that wereonce thought to be beyond human comprehen-sion, even in the realm of the gods, are able tobe rationalized and even become simple enoughto understand that they can be taught to youngchildren.

The proponent of creationism may argue thatscience engages in a similar fallacy, a so called‘naturalism-of-the-gaps’. However, anticipatingthat science will provide a natural explanationis not analogous to proposing a supernatural ex-planation. Science only deals with natural expla-

6

nations, so there will either be a natural expla-nation or no scientific explanation for any par-ticular fact. Because it is impossible to knowwhether a certain phenomenon is unexplainable,the only reasonable choice is to wait for betterevidence and withhold judgment on the issue.To halt scientific inquiry because a problem

seems too difficult to grapple with, or becausean answer might challenge a metaphysical con-viction, is to beg and plead for ignorance. In thisbehavior, the religious critic of science resemblesa lazy schoolchild. This schoolchild, wheneverhe reaches a particularly difficult exercise, im-mediately relents and claims the problem is im-possible to complete. The teacher urges him tokeep trying and reminds him that all the previ-ous problems had solutions and that they alsoseemed insurmountable at the time. Ignoringthe teacher, the child continues to complain un-til another student completes the problem anddemonstrates the solution. Even with this ex-perience fresh in his mind, the boy immediatelyfinds another problem beyond his skill and be-gins his protest anew. A cycle such as this wouldgrow tiring quickly, and so it has within the sci-entific community in regards to promoters of thesupernatural.Those who support the intervention of a God

or any other unnatural force in the origin of lifeare fighting an impossible war against the verynature of science. They may be correct in theirdogmas, but science cannot be used as a support-ing mechanism. Furthermore, it is not sufficientto offer a smattering of criticism against scienceand expect that this is enough to prove an oppos-ing conclusion. In order to grant some plausibil-ity to their claims, supernaturalists must shownot only that all current natural explanationsfail, but also that future explanation is highlyimprobable in principle. In addition, they must

demonstrate that nature is not in conflict withwhat they are proposing. To be clear, even if thiswas accomplished, it would not validate belief ina divine creator, but merely remove scientific ob-jections to that specific belief.

2.3 Abiogenesis

The author of TOL begins Question 1: How didlife begin? by briefly glossing some of the ideasthat exist about how an early protocell couldhave formed. Eager to turn genuine scientificcontroversy into a gap for the supernatural, var-ious quotes from people who advocate differinghypotheses regarding abiogenesis are presented.Alexandre Meinesz, who supports the view thatessential biological molecules and perhaps eventhe original living systems were brought to earthvia a meteoroid, is used to decry all research onterrestrial origins. It is also implied that scien-tists considered a hypothesis involving extrater-restrial material only because all of their priorwork had failed. This is false. Meteoroids areconsidered as a source for important biologicalchemicals because it has been shown that thesechemicals exist in certain space environments,and a considerable amount of this material hasfallen to Earth over the history of the planet. [29]Even so, research in this area is in the minority.

Dr. Meinesz’s quote regarding the lack ofprogress of any theory involving “nothing but amolecular soup” is both accurate and irrelevant.[60] Experiments conducted by Stanley Miller inthe 1950s showed that amino acids could be cre-ated by combining simple chemicals and energysources. While the particulars of his experimentwere hotly debated, the main achievement wasnot in the details. The point was that somethingthat was once thought impossible, the sponta-

7

neous synthesis of critical biological chemicalsfrom basic precursors, was demonstrated to bewithin the realm of science.The current state of the research on abiogene-

sis involves two general perspectives, ‘genes first’and ‘metabolism first’. Basic life requires twothings, a molecule to store genetic information,and a means to generate energy by metabolizingother compounds. The ‘genes first’ theory pro-poses that RNA emerged first as a molecule ofheredity. Later, naturally selected collections ofself-replicating RNA enclosed in a simple mem-brane, thereby creating a protocell. Processesfor metabolism would be added later if they in-creased the replication rate of the protocell. Onthe other hand, the ‘metabolism first’ approachsays that the initial environments for the ori-gin of life were reactive minerals such as thosefound in deep sea vents. These networks of rel-atively simple metabolic processes were, in ef-fect, a compositional genome that served as alist of the materials necessary to complete thereactions. More conventional genetic moleculeslike RNA may have been later appropriated orig-inally to aid the reaction but were converted foruse as a replicating instruction set.A leading proponent of the ‘genes first’ model

is Jack Szostak, a professor at Harvard Medi-cal School and Nobel laureate. [50] His lab cur-rently works on understanding the ways thatRNA could eventually lead to a viable proto-cell. [69] The sectors of research include deter-mining how replicating membranes could ariseand how RNA can catalyze its own replication.[28] RNA aiding in the replication of itself shouldcome as a surprise to the author of TOL andits readers. The article presses the idea thatRNA is required to make proteins but that en-zymes (a type of protein) are required for RNAto replicate. While it is true that there is no cur-

rent model for replication completely devoid ofprotein enzymes, the article completely ignoresthe great leaps in understanding related to RNAreplication. [6] It has been demonstrated that asegment of RNA, called a ribozyme, can act asan enzyme. In fact, the modern ribosome is aribozyme. This discovery was even awarded the1989 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. [63] Previously,enzymes were the only known biological catalyst.The existence of an RNA catalyst itself made ofRNA suggests that a direct mode of ribozyme-catalyzed RNA replication may exist. By ex-cluding these findings, the article tries to ignorescientific advances that happened nearly 30 yearsago, not to mention more recent research.In addition to the discovery of ribozymes, the

‘genes first’ model has other evidence in its fa-vor. Successful synthesis of RNA nucleotides ina plausible natural manner has been achievedand is indeed mentioned in a footnote of TOL.[38, 23] Future work in this area may lead to arobust model of nucleotide formation from pre-biotic components. Once a sufficient number ofnucleotides are present, a pathway must existto polymerize them into longer chains like ri-bozymes. In this vein, it has been found thata clay called montmorillonite can facilitate thispolymerization. [49] This clay can also catalyzethe formation of cell membranes from fatty acids.These membranes, once they are formed, are sta-ble and can join together to make larger ones.They also may be permeable to nucleotides, al-lowing these to concentrate inside the mem-brane. All a protocell requires is a membraneand replicating RNA structures. This protocellwould be able to grow, copy itself, and evolve tobecome more complicated.The opposing model of abiogenesis, the

‘metabolism first’ idea, attempts to avoid com-plicated RNA formation and polymerization and

8

instead focuses on energy production. A promi-nent advocate of this theory is Robert Shapiro ofNew York University. [74] He is also a vocal criticof ‘genes first’. In this capacity, TOL exploits hisquotes to attempt to tear down ‘genes first’ whilefailing to explain the model he does support. In‘metabolism first’, a particular mineral like irondisulfide catalyzes certain key biochemical reac-tions. This mineral is commonly found in deepsea vents. These vents also release gases that canbe broken down by certain chemical processes torelease energy. The metabolism of these gasesproduces organic compounds that could serve tofurther increase the efficiency of the original re-action. A possible clue to this ancient process isthe presence of iron sulfide in several importantenzymes used in cells today. From there, a cellmembrane can be formed in a similar mannerto that mentioned above. The introduction ofRNA and genetic replication happens at a laterstage after metabolizing units with a vesicle ex-ist. This last step may end up including ideasfrom the competing ‘genes first’ hypothesis. Ad-vocates of this model claim that the developmentof catalytic networks is a simpler and more ro-bust starting point then genetic material. Ongo-ing research will surely throw light on this topic.

2.4 An Incomplete Story

Both of the two basic theoretical persuasions inabiogenesis research have many different sub ele-ments and different possible explanations of howspecific biological mechanisms came about. Noconclusion has yet been reached on any of thesetopics. However, the prospects are good that sci-entific breakthroughs will lead to a much betterunderstanding of the origin of life.

It is important to notice what these theories do

not say. Neither of these theories claims that theoriginal protocells were nearly as complicated aseven the simplest modern cells. The cells thatare observed today have billions of years of evo-lutionary history that has crafted the complexinteraction of their various systems. No the-ory involves RNA and proteins randomly com-ing together without plausible chemical path-ways. The theories also do not claim that com-plex proteins just randomly appeared, makingclaims like that of Dr. Yockey irrelevant. Thequoted probabilities of proteins randomly form-ing are also misleading. While a source is notprovided, the math used to generate these stun-ningly small numbers is usually based on un-sound assumptions. The calculations often as-sume that the random trials happen serially, asopposed to the massively parallel processes thatwould be present in a community of early cells.They also assume that only one specific aminoacid sequence would meet the requirement fora particular biological function. This idea isfalse, because various different proteins can fillthe same niche. These types of criticism comefrom an incomplete understanding of the physi-cal principles involved.The final drive of the argument seeks to un-

dermine any future abiogenesis research. It ques-tions whether even the successful creation of aprotocell in the lab would demonstrate that thenatural origin of life was a possible event. Afterall, if humans had to work hard to create a pro-tocell, does that not just prove that intelligenceis required to make life? The answer is no. Itis akin to saying that crash tests of automobilesonly evaluate the damage resulting from colli-sions that are caused on purpose but do not pro-vide insight into the damage that may be causedby a real world accident. Abiogenesis researchersare not trying to create life by any means possi-

9

ble. There are people trying to create artificiallife in this manner, and they have recently madeconsiderable progress. [42] However, these scien-tists are not attempting to recreate any naturalevent. If they succeeded, it would grant a greaterunderstanding of life, but not of how it actuallyarose. In contrast, those studying the naturalorigin of life only employ methods and environ-ments that could plausibly be present when lifearose. They are not “manufacturing” life, butare simulating the conditions they think led toits origin.

Accepting a particular theory of abiogenesisas plausible does not require a “leap of faith”.None of the scientists are requesting that anyonebelieve their particular model as finished truth.They are formulating theories, running exper-iments, and gradually increasing human un-derstanding while being consciously aware thatmuch remains to be explained. There is evidencesuggesting certain conclusions, but the resultsare provisional. A person can choose to remainundecided until the theories are refined. A con-clusion that cannot be logically drawn is thatdivine intervention is required. There is no de-tailed supernatural explanation anywhere to befound. TOL states that abiogenesis is fanciful,but what is more fanciful, a rigorous natural ex-planation based on chemical and biological evi-dence, or the unsupported claim that a God justwilled complex life into existence out of nothing?

2.5 Simplicity

Question 2 of the TOL brochure asks Is AnyForm of Life Really Simple? The broad nar-rative of this subsection is “Cells are compli-cated. Therefore, only God could have madethem.” Abiogenesis and biological evolution are

once again conflated, with many differing chemi-cal and biological processes sloppily grouped un-der the banner “evolution”.

For the first time since the introduction, theBible is explicitly mentioned as a source for guid-ance in interpreting scientific evidence. The cen-tral argument is sharpened. TOL is not just ad-vocating for any intelligent supernatural agent,but is specifically promoting Yahweh, Jehovah,the God of the ancient Hebrews. This fact is key.If the argument was only trying to demonstratethe action of some generic ‘creator’ the problemof recognizing design would be much more dif-ficult. If you do not know anything about themind of the creator, it is impossible to deter-mine what they would design. A creator couldbe incompetent, evil, or lazy. There could bea committee of creators who designed life in ahaphazard, compromised manner.

Helpfully, the brochure defines what sort ofperson this creator is. He∗ is orderly, intelli-gent, “ingenious”, and exhibits “technical bril-liance”. A Biblical analogy likens his making ofthe world to the human endeavor of building ahouse. It is implied that the designs of God canbe likened to the engineering of man, just expo-nentially greater. It is possible, then, to evaluatebiology and determine if its “designs” are gooddepending on how efficient and well devised theyare by human standards. After all, the only wayone can define “design” or identify it would beto apply human standards. If God only follows“godly” design rules, then it is pointless to tryand find things designed in this fashion becausewe would have no way of distinguishing themfrom other objects.

After mentioning how many different typesof cells there are in a human body, the article

∗Obviously, God is a ‘he’

10

defines the difference between prokaryotic andeukaryotic cells. Never missing an opportunityfor a ‘god-of-the-gaps’ fallacy, the author pointsout that biologists do not currently have a com-plete explanation for how eukaryotes gained vari-ous structures including a differentiated nucleus.There are theories that involve prokaryotes in-gesting other cells, eventually leading to a sym-biotic relationship. [56] This process is not fullyunderstood. As before, this is merely a currentlack of knowledge, not evidence of divine cau-sation. Bacteria behave in ways that are totallyforeign to a common conception of an ‘organism’.They swap genes freely, their genomes being con-stantly remixed in new ways. A biological “al-liance” between different bacteria is not nearlyas strange as it may seem at first blush.

Following this brief diversion, the article getsback to making more factual errors. It claimsthat the original protocells resembled prokary-otes. This is true in some ways, except the factthat even the simplest modern prokaryotes haveundergone billions of years of evolution and aretherefore much more refined and complex thantheir ancient ancestors. By asking whether a cellsimilar to a modern prokaryote could “arise bychance”, TOL caricatures science in an attemptto shore up its argument. Evolution is an un-guided process, but it does not claim that thingslike advanced cells spontaneously emerged with-out simpler precursors.

Exhaustingly, the author repeats the falseclaim that the theory of evolution should explainthe origin of life. For reasons already covered,this is a category error. Evolution does explainhow replicating systems can become more com-plicated by adapting to their environment, butit does not attempt to explain the origin of thesesystems.

2.6 Designed or Not?

The next few pages are spent explaining somebasic concepts of cellular physiology includingthe cell membrane, protein synthesis, and res-piration. The enthusiasm in these paragraphswould be refreshing if it was not in the serviceof bad science. There is no appreciation of theirony involved in attempting to ridicule the sci-entific method while citing facts that can onlybe known through that method.Many details of the cell are highlighted as be-

ing efficient, clever, and “seemingly designed”.Of course, there is no effort made to presentthe explanation of complex biological systemsoffered by evolution. Correspondingly, no at-tempt is made to explain how proposing divineintervention actually provides any new scientificinformation. If one assumed that the cell wasdesigned, how would that actually further sci-ence? Would that enable the manufacture ofnew antibiotics? Would scientists better under-stand how the parts of a cell work together? No.TOL advocates staring at the awesome machin-ery of life in a dumb stupor and implies thatany further questioning is unnecessary. Real sci-entists continue to ask the big questions. Thisis the fundamental difference between pseudo-science like creationism and genuine inquiry intothe natural world.How does evolution explain complex cellular

structures? The answer is actually quite simple,if unintuitive. The process of evolution requiresthat some sort of genetic material is present andthis material is able to copy itself with someaccuracy. Perfect accuracy, though, is not re-quired. In fact, perfect copying would halt evo-lution in its tracks. The copying of genetic infor-mation must be fallible, mistakes must be occa-sionally made. These mistakes are the raw ma-

11

terial of evolution, an ore of possibility that isrefined by natural selection. This is a clue thatstatic ‘design’ is not present in a cell. If an au-tomobile stops operating in the way it was de-signed, it has malfunctioned. In a living cell, theresult is not so clear cut.

Most copying errors, or mutations, have littleor no effect on an organism. Often, the muta-tions are harmful, even deadly. The tiny remain-ing fraction of mutations can be beneficial underthe right circumstances. If a certain mutationhelps an organism to reproduce more success-fully in its current environment, this mutationwill be passed on to descendants. That is thesimplest form of evolution. Variation and natu-ral selection take the current state of the geneticmaterial, remix it slightly, and test to see if theresult is favorable. Evolution cannot anticipatethe future, and is limited to the materials onhand. However, this process can be extraordi-narily “creative”.

2.7 An Analogy

How can this blind process produce seemingly el-egant results? An analogy will clarify. Imaginethat a hungry person walks out of their apart-ment in search of a restaurant. Not knowing howthe city is laid out or where the nearest restau-rant is, this person walks down the street. Ateach intersection, they randomly choose a direc-tion. Eventually, the person walks right in frontof a burger joint and satisfies their appetite. Thenext day, the person is hungry again, and knowsone guaranteed route to a meal. The person setsout again to repeat the previous day’s route. Un-fortunately, the person is so hungry that theyforget which direction they turned at a particu-lar intersection. So they make another random

choice. They may happen upon part of their pre-vious route and complete the journey that way.They may also stumble upon the same burgerjoint by a different route. Sometimes, they willfind a superior restaurant. Many times, the per-son will wander for a long time without findingany food, and will return to their home utterlydismayed.This person repeats the above practice every-

day. Each time they leave the apartment, theywant to get food as fast as possible. They areable to time how long they have been walking,so they know the duration of their last success-ful route. However, their memory still fails occa-sionally, so they must sometimes randomly walkthe streets. It is possible to visualize a map ofthe city streets and the vast multitude of routesthat were taken by this hungry individual.Some routes will lead nowhere, a fruitless

search. Some will lead to the original restau-rant, but will be slightly shorter than the originalroute. Over a long period of time, with the hun-gry human choosing the quicker path, it is easyto see how the route could become shorter andshorter until the optimal route is found. Mostimportantly, the person may find new restau-rants that are more satisfying than the original.Given a certain walking radius and a very longperiod of time, the hungry person will eventu-ally find the best restaurant that is closest totheir house. If a restaurant closes down or movesacross town, the person will be able to adapt andfind a new place to eat. If nothing changes, theroute will also remain unchanged, excepting theoccasional memory failures.Never does the person look at a map and “de-

sign” a route to the best eatery. However, after asufficient amount of time, it would be impossibleto distinguish between the final route created bytrial and error and one chosen by consulting a

12

Figure 2.1: A series of random walks aroundtown.

map. The only difference is that the “evolution-ary” approach to locating a restaurant has a longhistory of pruning and error that led to the finalstate. In the example above, chance variation ormutations are represented by the memory errorsand random turning at intersections. Naturalselection is embodied in the hungry person whowants the fastest route to the restaurant. Thisis not to imply that an intelligent agent mustchoose among paths, the same thought experi-ment could include a robot that merely followsrandom paths and chooses the shortest. Thelength of the route and the quality of the restau-rant can be likened to biological ‘fitness’. Routesthat go nowhere are like deadly mutations whilethose of the same length are like neutral muta-tions. The closing or moving of restaurants rep-

resents a changing environment. Finding a pathto a new restaurant is like a novel evolutionarysolution.This analogy is not perfect. In actual or-

ganisms, some genes are more important thanothers and exercise great control over key sys-tems. Many features are governed by networksof genes, with each playing a subtle role. Cel-lular processes can be shaped by environmen-tal factors. Creating new genetic information isvery often not a simple point-by-point progres-sion. Multiple mutations can build up in unusedareas of the DNA, and then suddenly be trig-gered by another mutation. This can be likenedto the way a bad poker hand can be radicallyimproved by the addition of a single card. Also,evolution is something that happens to popula-tions, not individuals. A specific mutation mayoccur in an individual, but adaption and changeoccurs over time to a group of interbreeding or-ganisms. Real biology is complicated and can-not be fully grasped with a short illustration.[3] However, the preceding thought experimenthelps to show how, counterintuitive as is mightbe, random changes and selection pressures cancreate well arranged systems.Vivid and pragmatic examples of evolution in-

novating and creating “well designed” biologicalstructures can be found in the constantly chang-ing worlds of viruses and bacteria. Viruses arerelatively simple, they are just pieces of DNAor RNA with a protein coat. Viruses latch ontocells, inject their genetic code, and utilize themachinery of the cell to replicate themselves.Viruses are constantly mutating and therebystumbling upon new ways to infect other cells.This is the reason that a new flu vaccine is re-quired every season; the virus has changed so sig-nificantly that the old antibodies cannot recog-nize it. Similarly, the rapid evolution of HIV has

13

Figure 2.2: Different types of chromosomal mu-tation.

made developing a vaccine very difficult. Bac-teria also constantly react to their environment.Due to the excessive and improper use of an-tibiotics, many strains of bacteria are highly re-sistant to treatment. Disregarding human con-cerns, viruses and bacteria have been in an armsrace with the defenses of other cells for billions ofyears. This competition explains why even “sim-ple” prokaryotic bacteria are so well adapted totheir biological niche. While humans and otheranimals may not appreciate it, these infectious

biological systems are very well “designed” byevolution to evade immune systems and multi-ply themselves. If good “design” requires divineaction, does this mean that God is engineering anew flu virus every year to sicken as many peopleas possible and thwart our medical technology?Is he likewise carefully tuning all the individualparts of the Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcusaureus (MRSA) bacterium so that they are “bril-liantly designed” for infecting hospital patients?Did he “engineer” these deadly organisms in thefirst place?

2.8 Different Perspectives

Some object that these examples are merely ‘mi-croevolution’ and are hardly comparable to the‘macroevolution’ that leads to new species. How-ever, this is a false distinction. [26] Mutation andnatural selection only work at one scale, the scaleof the genome. To a strand of DNA, the only dif-ference between gaining resistance to a drug anddeveloping some other novel trait is a patternof nucleotides. Humans are able to view the re-sulting changes on difference scales, micro andmacro, but the distinction is arbitrary. Just assomeone is able to walk across a room, using thesame method they could walk down the streetor even across town. The scale of the observa-tion is different, but the salient action, puttingone foot in front of the other, is identical. Thereis no magical point where walking ceases to be-come effective for movement. There is similarlyno mysterious barrier that mutation and natu-ral selection cannot pass. Whether evolution isshaping a novel virus or a new species, the pro-cess is exactly the same.

Though not obvious, it can be understood howa slow, undirected process can create complex

14

and well adapted biological structures. “Creativ-ity” comes from the random mutations. Thesechanges are selected based upon their ability toconfer a reproductive advantage to the genomeof which they are a part. Over long periods oftime, this natural process “feels” out the figura-tive ‘landscape’ of survival, snaking around anddiscovering new genetic patterns that lead to in-creased survival rates. Complex biology doesnot just pop into existence by chance, but slowlybuilds through generations of natural selection.The various parts of a cell work well togetherbecause they have developed side by side overbillions of years. No scientist claims that thesesystems appeared out of nowhere “by accident”.There is a demonstrable natural process creatingthese biological synergies. [17]

At the end of this section, TOL returns tothe refuted refrain “evolution does not explainthe origin of life.” As stated previously, the twosubjects are separate and rely on different collec-tions of evidence. The author appears to becomesuddenly aware of this criticism, and instead por-trays abiogenesis as a weak foundation for evolu-tionary biology. This argument can be comparedto declaring that the “theory” of cheese-makingis unsound because the farmer cannot explainhow a cow produces milk or that an athlete needsto know the history of basketball in order to playit correctly. Even if someone decided to believethat God created the original cell, this would notinvalidate any part of evolutionary theory. Theconstant confusion of two separate topics is log-ically fallacious and intellectually bankrupt.

2.9 Detecting Intention

Question 3 of TOL is Where Did the Instruc-tions Come From? This subsection focuses on

the structure of DNA and the information rep-resented by it. Like the previous question, theauthor spends many paragraphs describing ba-sic biology, in this case the nature of DNA. Thedescriptions are acceptable, but the conclusionsdrawn are unsound. A familiar pattern repeatsitself: DNA is complex, therefore God made it.There is a flaw in reasoning here, a subtle false

analogy. To clarify, it is useful to propose twocategories of objects, those that were designedand those that were not. Humans know of manythings that are designed, like cars, computers,and coffee machines. There are also things thatdo not seem to be designed, like rocks, ponds,and dirt. How is this distinction made? Well,everyone knows that humans make cars, com-puters, and other devices. Everyone has seena factory and has probably designed an objectthemselves at some point. What about rocksand ponds? There are places on earth wheregreat quantities of lava spew out onto the earthand cool to form new rock. A long day of rainfallcan make a small depression into a pond. Both ofthese processes are mechanical and do not seemto involve any design or intention. If a personsees a Coca-Cola can tossed on the side of theroad, they can immediately determine that it isa human-made artifact and not a natural occur-rence. This is because that person knows thatCoke cans are made by people. Understandingthe origin or manufacture of an object allows oneto judge if it was designed or not.There are other rules of thumb that help to

determine if something was created with inten-tion. Human-made objects tend to include geo-metric shapes, involve materials that do not ex-ist naturally, and usually serve a comprehensi-ble purpose. An automobile has many precisionengineered surfaces, it is made of synthetic al-loys and plastics, and it seems to work well for

15

transportation. Background information abouthow ‘designed’ objects are made in contrast to‘natural’ objects is key to making a distinctionbetween them.What happens when a person comes upon an

object with an unknown source and ambiguousqualities? For example, some people would ar-gue that a Jackson Pollock painting exhibits veryfew signs of design or intent. However, it isknown that these works were created by a hu-man. What about a snowflake? Snowflakes,and many other crystal structures, possess com-plex, intricate patterns that look as if they weredesigned. In reality, these patterns are merelyemergent behavior from simple physical rulesabout certain materials. All large celestial bod-ies, like the moon, sun and Jupiter, appear atfirst observation to be perfect spheres. This as-pect led some ancient peoples to conclude thatthey were made in this perfect form by the gods.In modern times, it is understood that gravity isthe cause of this geometrically pleasing effect.Clearly, a thorough investigation must be

made to determine if an object is designed ornot. Simple rules of thumb fail when the ori-gin of something is not well understood and thesubjective ‘design’ qualities are easily misinter-preted. Many creationists will argue, in themanner of TOL, that certain biological systemslook like things made by humans. These objectsmay look “well engineered”, “efficient”, and “or-dered”. In order to identify these qualities, acontrast must be identified with things that arenot designed but are produced by natural pro-cesses. This includes stars, mountains, nebulae,and sunsets. Humans may perceive them as hav-ing great beauty, but no more divine interventionis required then is needed for a pot of water toboil on a stove or for a ball to fall to the surfaceof the earth. Of course, creationists believe that

Figure 2.3: Intricate patterns from simple rules.

God designed all of these natural things also,and thus they have demolished the distinctionbetween design and non-design upon which theiranalogy rested. If God can be invoked to explainboth things that appear designed and those thatdo not, then it is impossible to determine if anynatural object is designed.

Determined design proponents may attemptto side step this problem, and continue compar-ing the characteristics of human design to thatfound in biology. However, this proposed simi-larity is only superficial. Living systems do notlook much like human-designed machines. Liv-ing things reproduce, grow, and metabolize foodfrom the environment. Machines cannot (yet) re-produce themselves, they usually remain in their

16

initial configurations throughout their existence,and the energy used to operate them is suppliedfor them from an external source. Someone mayattribute these differences to the fact that Godis a superior engineer, and thus his designs areso far beyond those of mere humans that theyshould be expected to have more advanced qual-ities. However, by stating that divine designsare so much more sophisticated than those of hu-mans, the attempted analogy between the two isconsiderably weakened.

2.10 Function, Not Purpose

Further differences include the fact that thingsdesigned by humans usually have some clearpurpose. Tools enable easier work, art createsaesthetic pleasure, and airplanes enable fastertransportation. Attributing purpose, though,can only come logically after knowing that anobject is designed. For example, hammers areknown to have been designed by humans to drivenails. Unless nails were designed, hammers arepurposeless. Intentional design creates purpose.A hammer may be used to shatter windows orbruise thumbs, but these uses are merely coinci-dental with the actual purpose. Therefore, it isnot logically sound to conclude that just becausean object can do something, that its ‘purpose’ isto do that thing and therefore that this ‘purpose’comes from design. Reasoning in this manner isexactly backwards.

For instance, imagine watching seagulls eatdiscarded food from a restaurant parking lot.One might say, incorrectly, that the ‘purpose’of seagulls is to clean up the parking lot. In re-ality, the birds are merely taking advantage of aresource. On the other hand, if an employee ofthe restaurant is seen picking up the same waste,

it is appropriate to attribute purpose. This in-ference can only be made with the knowledge ofhow businesses operate. It is a known fact thatpeople are employed by businesses for variouspurposes, including grounds keeping. Businesses“design” their selection of employees and assigneach a particular purpose. Without knowledgeof how or why a business would hire someone toclean their grounds, it would be impossible to in-terpret these actions. A human or a bird pickingup food from a parking lot are doing the exactsame thing. Attributing purpose to the human,but not the bird, is based entirely on backgroundinformation. One could not simply observe theaction alone, in a contextual vacuum, and con-clude that the presence of the bird or the humanwas purposeful.

In relation to biology, the same principle ap-plies. Biological systems are certainly capableof doing a specific task in an organism. Many ofthese systems are efficient and elegant. However,interpreting this as a sign of purpose, and hencedesign, is circular reasoning. If one is trying toargue that biology is designed, the fact that a liv-ing system is very good at achieving some task isirrelevant, because attributing purpose assumesthe very intentional design whose demonstrationis attempted.

2.11 DNA

Finally, the topic of DNA can be broached. TOLexplains how effective DNA is at storing infor-mation in a compact format and the varioussteps involved in transcribing this informationinto proteins. It also falsely implies that sci-entists think that this molecule just appeared“by chance”. The precise origin of DNA is cur-rently unknown, but a plausible pathway of de-

17

velopment exists. It is thought that the orig-inal protocells utilized only RNA to store ge-netic information. RNA is chemically and struc-turally very similar to DNA. The differences be-tween the two allow DNA to maintain longer,more stable strands of nucleotides. While earlycells could exist with only RNA, there wouldbe survival advantages to evolving DNA as astorage medium. The fact that both are inti-mately related in the transcription process, andthat the protein-building ribosome contains im-portant RNA sequences is likely a record of theancient derivation of the DNA / RNA relation-ship from a simpler RNA-only configuration.The chemistry of the molecular structures in-

volved in DNA transcription is highly functional,but not by “chance”. These molecules werehoned over billions of years to a state of highefficiency, just as modern viruses and bacteriaare very proficient at defeating the constantlyadapting immune systems of other organisms.Furthermore, the separate parts of these biolog-ical mechanisms have a natural chemical affin-ity for each other. The reason that Watson andCrick were able to determine the structure ofDNA was that the principles of chemical bond-ing between the atoms were known and could beused to rule out certain patterns. So, biologicalsystems differ in another way from most humanmachines. No screw, bolt, or shaft will naturallycollect other parts. This is in contrast to themicroscopic building blocks of biology, which areattracted by electrostatic forces and governed bychemistry.DNA replication is another efficient, though

imperfect process. While DNA is copied withvery high accuracy, the fact that errors occa-sionally occur is critical. A human cell containsabout 3 billion base pairs. Statistically, DNAreplication makes one error for every 2 billion

nucleotides, which results in an average of fiveerrors, or mutations, per cell. [25] With tril-lions of cells that are constantly replicating theirDNA, errors are always popping up. Most areinconsequential, but some mutations introducenew genetic information for natural selection tooperate on. Certain mutations may cause sin-gle point changes, or shift the ‘reading frame’and lead to entirely new proteins. [33] With-out replication mistakes, life would be unable toadapt and evolution would not occur.

2.12 Not Quite Perfect

What about the information represented by thestructure of DNA? While DNA is a very denseform of raw information storage, the functionalportions of these “instructions” are not effi-ciently arranged in the genome. Even TOL men-tions that only a tiny portion of the genomeactually codes for proteins. The rest consistsof the unfortunately named ‘junk DNA’. Whilethe term ‘junk’ seems belittling, it just refersto the fact that these long stretches of DNAare not transcribed. That does not mean thatthey are entirely devoid of function. Some ofthe code serves a regulatory purpose or is impor-tant for the structure of chromosomes. Even so,large parts of the genome are apparently with-out function. This conclusion is based on manypoints of evidence including the presence of re-dundant pseudogenes, the insertion of endoge-nous retroviruses (ERVs), and the comparativesize of genomes from different organisms.

Redundant pseudogenes are copies of anothergene that are reinserted into the DNA. The orig-inal gene still exists and fulfills its function, buta copy is placed somewhere else. These extracopies serve little, if any, function. Most do not

18

effect the organism in any way. They may beleft untranscribed or even untranslated. Addi-tionally, these redundant genes are rapidly al-tered by random mutations, which is expecteddue to the fact that a mutation in the pseudo-gene has no effect and hence cannot be selectedfor or against by natural selection. One wouldhardly expect a perfect designer to write the cel-lular instructions with various pointless copies ofgenes that are already present in the code. Evo-lution, on the other hand, predicts that randomerrors will leave some cruft and a history of failedgenetic “experiments” in the genome.Endogenous retrovirus are parts of a virus

genome that are inserted into the genetic codeof the infected host. About 1% of the humangenome is made up of various retroviruses thathave been collected by humans and their an-cestor species over evolutionary time. [76] Thisgenetic information, being a random foreign in-trusion, is without function and therefore col-lects mutations just like redundant pseudogenes.Again, if the genome was carefully designed byGod, why would he allow hundreds of viruses toinject their own code randomly throughout hiswork?A final clue that the genome is a not a per-

fectly optimized set of instructions is the widevariation in genome size among different or-ganisms. A creationist may propose some un-known function for all the old virus and pseudo-gene remnants littered throughout the humanegenome, but then a conundrum must be ad-dressed: why do many species, including theonion Allium cepa, have several times more non-coding DNA than humans? [18] Do onions re-quire all this extra code to serve some as yetundiscovered need? Are onions so much morecomplex than humans that God granted thema super-sized helping of this seemingly useless

DNA? Evolution predicts these facts as the re-sult of the unguided process of genetic duplica-tion and mutation. An advocate of creation mustexplain why a “brilliant” divine engineer wouldleave all this extra genetic material around clut-tering up the genome.

2.13 The Future is Now

After an analysis of the structure of DNA andvarious cellular processes involving it, anyonewould be impressed. Those who are most im-pressed become biologists. TOL argues thatthese scientists, who devoted their careers tostudying the mechanics of life, are too blind or ig-norant to reach the “obvious” conclusion that allof biology must have been designed by God. Theauthor tries to get as much rhetorical mileage aspossible out of the things that scientists haveyet to discover. The ‘god-of-the-gaps’ resurfacesmultiple times. The danger of this approach be-comes apparent in the face of advancing scientificknowledge.

A marvelous example of this danger resultsfrom the claim that “Scientists cannot createDNA with all its replication and transcriptionmachinery; nor can they fully understand it.”Such an assertion sets itself up to be toppled byfuture progress. To strengthen this foolish dec-laration, the great physicist Richard Feynman isquoted as saying, “What I cannot create, I donot understand.” Editors no doubt finalized thetext of TOL sometime in 2009, oblivious to thework of researcher Craig Venter. Early in 2010,Venter and his team announced the successful ar-tificial synthesis of a complete cellular genome.[42] This artificially generated genome was in-serted into an empty cell and “booted up”, justas functional as a natural cell.

19

Venter’s team took a further step that is in-teresting from the perspective of this specific de-bate over biological ‘design’. These scientists,cognizant of the fact that the genome they syn-thesized may be indistinguishable from a naturalorganism, embedded messages in the non-codingsections of the DNA. They developed an easilydecipherable code that could represent the al-phabet, numbers, and punctuation. Using thiscode, they inserted their own names, a web-site URL, and various quotes into the genome.[51] In a coincidence overflowing with irony, oneof the quotes included in this artificial genomeis that exact same Richard Feynman statementmentioned above. Here, the publishers of TOLare caught out by scientific progress in the mostembarrassing manner possible. Not only wasthe achievement that they declared beyond hu-man ability actually accomplished, but the samequote they used to make their point was physi-cally incorporated in the very event that provedthem wrong. Poetic justice of this magnitude israre.

This scientific milestone prompts a furtherquestion. If mere humans had enough foresightto embed an unambiguous code into the genomethey synthesized, why did God not do the same?What prevented the omnipotent creator of theuniverse from incorporating, say, the entire textof the Bible into the noncoding portions of thehuman genome? If this was not possible, per-haps room could have been made in the bloatedgenome of the noble onion for a few chapters ofthe Gospels.

2.14 Always Quoting

The concluding paragraphs of this subsection ofTOL are devoted to misrepresenting a famous

scientist and irrelevantly quoting a well knownphilosopher. A decades-old book authored byFrancis Crick detailing directed panspermia, theidea that genetic material was launched to Earthby intelligent extraterrestrials, is used to erecta weak criticism of any theory about the nat-ural origin of DNA. Crick’s ideas on this sub-ject were never widely accepted among scientists,and even Crick himself later withdrew his criti-cisms of origin of life research in light of progressin the field. [67] Another poorly aimed rhetoricaldart is the anecdotal change of heart by formeratheist philosopher Anthony Flew. Flew beinga philosopher and not a biologist, his personalviews regarding the origin of DNA have littleweight in a largely technical scientific discussion.Similarly, the dubious claim that no human

method of information storage can parallel DNAis inconsequential. [70] Even if true, the at-tempted point rings hollow. Humans are inca-pable of creating hurricanes or planets, but thisdoes not imply that divine power is needed tomake these objects.In a crescendo of intellectually shallow plead-

ing, the author of TOL attempts to impose un-founded incredulity onto his readers. He con-structs a misguided factory analogy that col-lapses under the same logical analysis presentedearlier in this essay. A cell is not like a fac-tory because it is known that factories are builtby humans to achieve some purpose. Projectingpurpose onto biology when design has yet to bedemonstrated is fallacious. Furthermore, declar-ing that the origin and development of life isbeyond science displays gross unfamiliarity withthe pertinent literature and complete ignoranceof the progress made in the fields of evolutionarybiology, abiogenesis, and chemistry.Every reflective person must agree that life

is beautiful and amazing. No group feels this

20

awe more deeply than the scientists who devotetheir collective efforts to researching biology. Itis telling that these experts reject the vacuousclaims of religiously-motivated amateur critics.To quote TOL, “Really, the evidence speaks foritself.”

2.15 The Family Tree

A fourth “question worth asking” is Has All LifeDescended From a Common Ancestor? Thisis indeed a very important question. The fos-sil and genetic evidence for common descent areso strong and well established that any attemptto refute the concept arouses skepticism. Neverfailing to satisfy the worst expectations, TOLsystematically misrepresents the evidence, ig-nores the conclusive findings of modern genetics,and misquotes scientists at every turn.The author immediately begins with some

Biblical “insights” into the origin of species.These are less insights then they are reiterationsof the ancient myths of a prescientific MiddleEastern society. The core assertion is that lifeforms are restricted to variation within the ill-defined category ‘kind’, and that the fossils andgenetic evidence do not indicate evolutionary re-lationships among different organisms.The ‘tree of life’ is a simple mental model for

understanding the process of speciation. Cur-rent species, the most exterior branches, are re-lated by way of many common ancestors, theforks, back to a common trunk. As with allsimple models, there are various subtleties andcomplexities that are not captured by this quick,publicly accessible description. Biology, like ev-ery area of knowledge, requires a sufficientlydeep understanding of many interrelated con-cepts in order to grasp the full picture. Unfortu-

nately, TOL is not a work of scientific subtlety orsophistication but instead presents shoddy, mis-leading summaries of emerging research.Problems arise as soon as TOL attempts to

characterize recent advancements in evolution-ary biology. Apparently unfamiliar with the con-cept of a constantly improving body of scientificunderstanding, the author frames the introduc-tion of new evidence as necessitating the elimi-nation of all previous knowledge. It is true thatDarwin’s original theory failed to explain cer-tain data from later decades. That is why iswas revised and expanded. Today, mainstreambiology is being modified and improved to in-clude new discoveries enabled by computationalgenetic analysis. These changes, however, do notalter Darwin’s fundamental conclusion: all life isrelated. Refinements to the grand picture serveonly to strengthen, not weaken, that conclusion.[73]The nescient author points out that scientists

have genetically analyzed many organisms to de-termine how they are related. Unsurprisingly,he puts forward the blatant falsehood that theseanalyses have failed to show common descent.Instead, the data show a more intricate andmulti-leveled “tree of life” that still points un-ambiguously to common descent.Confusion breaks out at soon as TOL starts

quoting Malcolm S. Gordon and an infamousNew Scientist issue titled “Darwin Was Wrong”.Dr. Gordon is correct when explaining that thetree of life (phylogeny) may have various “roots”and not a single starting point. Ancient single-celled organisms swapped genetic informationthrough a process called horizontal gene trans-fer. Evolved features and mechanisms could betraded back and forth leading to radically newtypes of life. This chaotic environment is notamenable to a simple tree. Instead, a modified

21

Figure 2.4: An example of a phylogenetic tree.

tree would feature branches splitting off, curlingand recombining in strange ways.

This phenomenon was unknown to Darwin, sohis simpler conception of phylogeny needs refine-ment. This is to be expected, being that he lived150 years ago. Modern biology owes its founda-tions to Darwin, but in a way, evolution is notreally “Darwin’s theory” anymore. His key in-sights remain, but they have been radically im-proved and supplemented. Science is not a dog-matic collection of immutable statements madeby unassailable saints. It does not matter thatDarwin was incorrect about many things, as sci-ence is not tied to any individual.

Dr. Gordon’s other comments should be

placed in context by noting that the title of thepublished work in which his statements appearis The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Es-say. This publication is a speculative work ad-dressing emerging concepts in the complicatedworld of biological classification called cladistics.Comments involving the reality of categories likekingdom or phylum are intimately related to in-quiries into the ancient history of single-celledorganisms. This work does not challenge the factthat modern species are related by common an-cestors.The deceptive use of the New Scientist issue

proclaiming “Darwin Was Wrong” falls along thesame lines. While the publishers of TOL try toavoid charges of dishonest quote mining with afootnote, they are still guilty. It is true that ad-vanced computational tools are opening up newpossibilities for analyzing the genomes of organ-isms. The results of this work are leading sci-entists to revise old models, adding detail andnuance. All of this research only further solidi-fies the theory of evolution.The editors of New Scientist, while perhaps

too quick to publish sensational cover state-ments, were fully aware that their work wouldbe misappropriated by creationists in exactly thefashion that TOL does. It it best to quote di-rectly from the magazine itself:

“None of this should give succourto creationists, whose blinkered uni-verse is doubtless already buzzing withthe news that ‘New Scientist has an-nounced Darwin was wrong’. Expectto find excerpts ripped out of contextand presented as evidence that biolo-gists are deserting the theory of evolu-tion en masse. They are not.” [15]

Recent findings may necessitate reconsidera-

22

tion of the early stages of life’s diversification. Asimple tree may no longer be sufficient to cap-ture the complicated interactions of ancient lifeforms. The topic is controversial. [77, 13] Thisfact has little impact on the evolutionary rela-tionships that exist between modern multicellu-lar organisms. The idea of a ‘universal commonancestor’, which means that all life can be tracedback to a single organism, is different from themore general ‘common descent’, which is the factthat all species are related by common ancestors.

2.16 History in the Rocks

Satisfied with clumsy quotations regarding com-mon ancestry, TOL moves on to construct a sim-ilarly ridiculous case against the fossil record. Itstarts by quoting David M. Raup who explainsthat the fossil record is incomplete and showsthat species are relatively stable much of thetime. This is true, unremarkable, and has beenknown and acknowledged for many decades. Theauthor of TOL has no idea what the fossil recordactually is, or what should be expected from it.This ignorance is due not only to a lack of un-derstanding about the process of evolution butthe mechanisms and limitations of fossilizationitself.Creationists imagine that if animal species are

related by evolutionary mechanisms, that a fos-silized example of each intermediate step shouldbe found. This is incorrect on a few accounts.Fossilization is a rare process, as most organismsare not preserved in the proper manner to createa fossil. Some environments are not conducive tofossilization. Some organisms do not have hardtissues that can be fossilized. Finally, finding aparticular fossil is quite difficult.More importantly, the process of evolution is

not the linear, ever advancing, steady processthat some people assume. Evolution is not “try-ing” to get anywhere in particular. Organismscannot be arranged in a straight ladder struc-ture with “better” creatures on top and “prim-itive” ones below. Evolution is more accuratelypictured as a bush, with many arms spreadingin all directions. Only a few branches actuallyincrease in complexity and introduce new struc-tures or features.The environment is frequently the force be-

hind the derivation of new species, so the rateof environmental change is very important tothe stability of a species. Many species remainfairly unchanged over long periods of time, astate called stasis, because the environment isstable. In contrast, rapid speciation may occurunder certain circumstances when abrupt envi-ronmental change or other pressures are present.The speed and limited geographical extent of thisprocess makes it unlikely that all intermediateswill be preserved.An example of relatively speedy biological di-

versification is the oft-mischaracterized ‘Cam-brian explosion’. While “fast” by geologicalstandards, the Cambrian explosion took placeover at least five million years. This period ofevolution was relatively rapid, though not mirac-ulous in nature. There is evidence of complex lifein the Precambrian period and there are transi-tional fossils within the Cambrian. [30, 10, 78] Itis unclear exactly why TOL thinks the Cambrianexplosion is a problem for evolution or an asset totheir own position. It is possible that the editorsconsider the emergence of certain major bodyplans as an example of the ‘creative days’ of God,but this is unfounded. Virtually none of the an-imal groups that existed during the Cambrianperiod resemble any modern species. There wereno mammals, birds, or insects. Interestingly, no

23

land plants evolved until much later, in contra-diction with the book of Genesis. It is clear thatthe “vegetation” actually came after some “crea-tures” like trilobites already existed for millionsof years.∗ The implied Biblical interpretation ofthe Cambrian explosion is actually hurt by anydetailed examination of the character and natureof biological history.

Is evolution incapable of explaining the di-versification recorded in the Cambrian strata?TOL suggests, by quoting a suspect interview ofStuart Newman, that Cambrian history “. . . iscausing some evolutionary researchers to ques-tion the traditional version of Darwin’s the-ory.” [68] Of course, no biologist accepts “tra-ditional” evolutionary theory as described 150years ago. Darwin lacked much of the fossil ev-idence that exists now, and had no knowledgeof genetics, much less the sophisticated genetictools of the 21st century. New evidence necessi-tates improved theories. Emerging research sug-gests that other genetic phenomena that wouldhave been unimaginable to Darwin are impor-tant for shaping species. When Dr. Newmanrefers to the “Darwinian mechanism”, he is re-ferring specifically to natural selection. Othermechanisms like gene flow, genetic drift, and re-combination can also lead to biological change.No biologist would be surprised to hear the evo-lution is not restricted only to natural selection.

Even considering that evolution has an un-even tempo, with very slow change punctuatedwith periods of blooming biological diversity,there should still be many examples of transi-tional fossils with intermediate characteristics.Contrary to TOL, there are many transitionalforms that have been discovered. Notable tran-sitions include land mammals-to-whales, fish-to-

∗Genesis 1:11-21

tetrapods, reptiles-to-birds and apes-to-humans.[12, 41, 24, 35, 64, 43, 66, 20, 22] Even the partic-ular example of the evolution of bats has been il-luminated in recent years. [37] These collectionsare not complete, as every possible intermedi-ate has not been unearthed. However, the fossilevidence is more than adequate to demonstratethat life has changed considerably over time.In the face of such evidence, the author of

TOL must try to obscure the scientific conclu-sion. The first objection is that “. . . the compar-ative size of the creatures placed in the reptile-to-mammal sequence is sometimes misrepresentedin textbooks.” No reference is provided to an ac-tual example of this in a real textbook. Even ifthere was, it would be a nonissue. Ignoring thefact that figures presented in a text are likelysized to allow readers to compare features andnot to show the creatures to scale, organismscan vary greatly in size while having very simi-lar genetic makeup. As an example, even mostcreationists will admit that all dog breeds havea common ancestor. Yet, the difference in sizebetween a Chihuahua and a Great Dane is con-siderable. The genes that regulate size can differamong closely related species even if other fea-tures are nearly identical.The second, more “serious” supposed chal-

lenge to the fossil record is the fact that thisrecord is incomplete. Species that are relatedcan be separated by millions of years. Is this aproblem? Not when it is understood that theseries of related species that make up a phy-logeny (a nested tree of biological relationship)are not claimed to be direct ancestors. As men-tioned previously, the history of evolution resem-bles a bushy, branching structure. Many of theorganisms found in the fossil record may be evo-lutionary dead ends or evolutionary “cousins”,not direct “links” between two points on a tree.

24

However, by comparing fossils, scientists can seethe development of certain biological structuresthrough time.

2.17 One Clear Solution

TOL asserts that biologists are merely imposingan evolutionary tree of common ancestry on afossil record that admits of no obvious interpre-tation. The author likens developing a phyloge-netic tree to inferring the plot of a movie froma mere handful of frames. Again, TOL thrustsa scientist inappropriately into an argument heis not making. Richard Morris is quoted as say-ing, “They had been trying to interpret fossilevidence in terms of accepted evolutionary the-ory.” Dr. Morris is referring historically to theintroduction of the concept of punctuated equi-librium, or relatively rapid evolution, by paleon-tologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould.Before this idea was introduced, scientists werelimited to trying to understand fossils only asrepresentatives of gradualistic change. As Mor-ris explains in the same chapter quoted by TOL,scientists must first try to use current theories tounderstand new evidence. If this was not done,new data would be incomprehensible. However,when anomalous evidence cannot be explainedby a current theory, the theory is revised. This isexactly what happened in the 1970s in relation topunctuated equilibria. It is now understood thatspecies can remain stable for long periods of timeand can also change relatively quickly. Revisionand improvement based on new evidence is howscience works. This change no more impacts thefact of common ancestry than Einstein’s formu-lation of general relativity affects the fact thatEarth has gravity. Both are examples of newtheories offering better explanations of the data

than the old ones. Dr. Morris summarizes hisstatements:

“You shouldn’t imagine that Eldredge’sfindings cast any doubt on the idea ofnatural selection. He had only observedthat certain species had remained staticfor long periods of time. They had cer-tainly evolved from earlier forms, andnatural selection was the only thingthat could have caused them to do so.”[61]

What about the fossils that do show changes?Are biologists just arranging them in an arbi-trary order that they deem convenient? To un-derstand why the evolutionary phylogenetic treebest explains the fossils that have been discov-ered, one has to know how that tree is con-structed. Before it was possible to map thegenome of an organism, the only way to differ-entiate species was by their physical character-istics, what scientists call morphology. For ex-ample, the differences and similarities between acat and a fish can be reduced to a list of physi-cal characteristics. One is a mammal, and one isnot. One has lungs, the other has gills. However,they are both vertebrates. Using morphology,organisms can be categorized by species, genus,family, and so on. This system, with its familiartwo-part Latin naming convention is still usedtoday.

Originally, this taxonomy was not seen as rep-resenting anything other than a convenient wayto categorize different creatures. The inventor,Carl Linnaeus, was a Christian creationist wholived a century before Darwin. He was in noway trying to promote common descent, whichhe had no conception of, or suggest that differentspecies were related in any profound way.

25

Figure 2.5: Homologous structures in mammals.

Beyond classifying organisms by their physi-cal features, it is also possible to arrange themaccording to their developmental processes. Onecan compare the way a larva becomes an insector the way a embryo grows into a mammal. Byobserving the manner in which different parts areformed, similarities emerge. The developmentalprocess is fundamental and difficult to alter, soif evolution is correct, creatures that share com-mon ancestry should share developmental path-ways.Utilizing the morphological and developmen-

tal characteristics of different organisms, a fairlydetailed nested hierarchy can be created. Onemight object that picking certain characteris-tics by which to develop a hierarchy is arbitrary.This would be correct in some cases. For in-stance, airplanes could be split into propeller andjet propelled categories. Among each of thesegroups, further divisions could be made accord-ing to the number of engines, passenger capacity,or some other feature. Though it may be use-ful for remembering different types of airplanes,any random selection of features could be used tocreate totally different hierarchies. Because air-planes to not reproduce to make other airplanes,these nested trees would be arbitrary.If all living things were created separately and

did have a common descent, the phylogenetic

trees created by biologists should be endlesslyvariable, just like the airplane tree. One biolo-gist could group animals by whether they movedprimarily by walking, swimming or flying. An-other could differentiate according to warm orcold-bloodedness. However, each of these ar-bitrary hierarchies would fail to fit with otherdata. Bats and birds both have wings, and there-fore could be grouped together. Unfortunately,their skeletal features differ greatly, along withthe fact that one is a mammal and the other isnot. All arbitrary methods of generating phylo-genetic trees run into the same problem when itcomes to incorporating multiple types of data.By contrast, if organisms are biologically re-

lated by a branching tree of common descent,many different types of features should clustertogether. Traits that developed early in evolu-tionary history should be found among the fol-lowing branches, and nowhere else. A nestedhierarchy constructed by assuming that organ-isms are related by common ancestors best fits allthe data. A tree created according to morphol-ogy will match very closely with one developedaccording to development. Each independentlygenerated phylogeny validates the structure ofthe other. In fact, it can be shown mathemat-ically that a phylogeny developed according togenealogical relationship is superior to one thatuses arbitrary characteristics. [39, 44]If creation is true, there is no reason that this

should be the case. A nested hierarchy basedon common descent should be just as variableas one created according to any other criteria.While common descent can explain why certainlife forms share morphological or developmentalcharacteristics, creationism cannot. Why do nobirds have fur? Why are there no fish with mam-mary glands? Why do no nonvascular plantshave flowers? Why do all fish develop differently

26

than all squid? If life was created by a divine en-gineer, one would expect specific traits to be lessstrictly segregated. In reality, these characteris-tics are distributed on the tree exactly as wouldbe predicted by common descent.

2.18 It’s in the Genes

Modern genetic evidence further reinforces thistree of common ancestry. Instead of looking atthe physical features of an organism, scientistscan now analyze the genome also. Genetic struc-tures show a similar distribution of descent withmodification. Many creatures share the samemolecular machinery to archive basic biologicaltasks. An example of a ubiquitous biological el-ement is the protein cytochrome c. Cytochromec is vital for generating energy within the cell,and all living things have it. Interestingly, thisprotein can be structured in vastly different waysand still fulfill its role. The version of cytochromec present in humans differs in nearly half of itscoding from the version in a yeast. However, thehuman protein code can be transferred into ayeast that has had its own version deleted, withno loss in function. [40]

Because there are a huge number of cy-tochrome c variants that are equally useful,different species can have very different ver-sions. If organisms were created distinctly, thereshould be no overarching pattern in the distri-bution of different formulations of cytochromec. Again, the variations do not fall randomlyamong species, but show the same common de-scent pattern previously evidenced by morphol-ogy and development. It is important to reit-erate that related species do not have similarvariants of this protein for any functional rea-son, because even radically different versions are

operationally equivalent.A good example of genetically related cy-

tochrome c variation is seen in apes. The hu-man and chimpanzee protein differs only slightlyfrom that of other mammals. The chance of thishappening without a hereditary relationship isalmost zero. Without fail, species that are moreclosely related by common descent have moresimilar versions of cytochrome c.More evidence is found by revisiting endoge-

nous retroviruses (ERVs). These are portionsof various virus genomes that have been ran-domly inserted into a host genome. They werementioned earlier when discussing non-codingDNA. Common descent would predict that re-lated species would share portions of retroviruscode inherited from a common ancestor. This isexactly what is found in nature. Humans andchimpanzees share a minimum of seven commoninsertions, which would be almost impossible ifthey did not share a common ancestor. [21] Sim-ilar genetic relationships can be found for otheranimals. [46] A phylogeny based on retrovirusesagain reinforces the same tree determined fromother facts. Without admitting common ances-try, how can creationists explain these geneticpatterns?Various independent threads of evidence re-

fute TOL’s intimation that scientists are merelyinterpreting the evidence in a biased manner toachieve the result they want. The distribution ofphysical traits, genetic code, and developmentalprocesses all point to a tree of common descentfor multicellular organisms. While it is unrea-sonable to expect to find each transitional form,multiple sources of data all corroborate the samestory of the history of life. Aside from divine de-ception, creationists are without explanation forthese clear pointers to the shared ancestry of allliving things.

27

Figure 2.6: A phylogeny created according toERVs.

2.19 The Naked Ape

Attempting to apply the faulty conclusions ofits previous line of “questioning”, TOL attacksthe evidence for the origin of humans from otherapes. The first target is a strawman descriptionof the fossil evidence for the ancestor species ofmodern humans. While acknowledging the sheernumber of specimens, it is claimed that there isno consensus among anthropologists about thespecific line of descent that led to humans. Thisis strictly true, just as it is for any species. Con-structing the exact line of succession is virtuallyimpossible, but using the methods mentionedabove, a tree structure still emerges. The rea-son scientists disagree about which species ledto another, and which ones coexisted or wentextinct, is due to the gradual nature of specia-

tion in complex animals. If, as evolution claims,species change relatively gradually, it should bedifficult to tease apart the differences betweenrelated species. But that does not mean thatdifferences cannot be found.Picture a line of color that transitions

smoothly from red to orange. If the eye followsthe line slowly from one end to the other, thereis no specific point when red becomes orange. Ifa certain point is chosen, what makes anotherpoint just a fraction of an inch to the left orright not the true demarcation? By followingthis logic, it would be possible to argue that apoint immediately to one side was just as good asthe previous one, and soon the eye would end upat the red or orange end. However, it would befoolish to argue that the whole line is the samecolor or that the transition does not exist. Oneend is definitely red, the other definitely orange,and the points in between are a mix of the two.The same predicament is met when investi-

gating the remains of ancient human predeces-sors. The process of evolutionary change wasslow, and therefore the science of determiningstrict categories is difficult and painstaking. Ex-perts debate the various features of bones, andtry to reconstruct the “family” tree. The tech-niques used to make these distinctions are com-plex and beyond this essay, but can be foundin any college-level anthropology textbook. [8]While there are definitely informed disagree-ments among scientists, the picture of humanorigins as a whole is fairly clear. Modern hu-mans were preceded by various Australopithecusand Homo species, which each possessed a mo-saic of human-like and ape-like features. It iscertainly true that intact skulls and skeletonsare rarer than individual fragments, but morethan enough physical evidence exists to deter-mine that there were many transitional species

28

that eventually led to Homo sapiens. In addi-tion to these specimens, there are many featuresof human and modern ape genomes that indicatecommon descent, as explained earlier.Next, TOL details the discovery of the fossil

called Ida in 2009. It is accurate when it de-scribes the media hype surrounding this speci-men. Ida was accompanied by a television doc-umentary and website that were unveiled simul-taneously with the scientific article. Ida wasclaimed by newspapers to be “the missing link”in human evolution. Satisfied with pointing outthe apparent folly of scientists, TOL fails to men-tion that the rest of the scientific community wasskeptical when Ida was announced. [9] The peo-ple who initially discovered and studied the fos-sil were criticized for not allowing the broaderscientific establishment to examine their claimsbefore Ida was highly publicized. When otherscientists were able to do their own work, itwas determined that though Ida was a beauti-ful and valuable find, the original claims wereoverstated. [36] The scientific community wasnot “fooled” by Ida. Only popular newspaperswere misled by the over-hyped unveiling. Thesesame news sources also published the contraryresearch when it was published. [62] Finally, theterm ‘missing link’, loved by sensational headlinewriters, is scientifically vacuous. As explainedpreviously, direct evolutionary relationships areimpossible to establish. There is no magical fos-sil that would “prove” human evolution. Thathistory has already been firmly established.TOL next questions the scientific basis for

museum and textbook depictions of ancestralspecies related to Homo sapiens. This com-plaint is accurate but irrelevant. The reconstruc-tion of the specific facial features of long extinctspecies is influenced by artistic considerations.The same goes for the pigmentation of dinosaur

skin and the multicolored pictures of the cos-mos taken by the Hubble space telescope. Noone yet knows what color dinosaurs were, andHubble photos are printed in false color to showdetail. This is done for public consumption tomake scientific findings more approachable. Thesame goes for fleshed out depictions of the face-less remains of human ancestors. Fortunately,the evidential basis for human evolution is notfounded on what the mugshot of a Homo erectusmay have looked like. The various cranial fea-tures of these species are evidence in themselves,and cosmetic facial characteristics are inconse-quential.The last argument TOL poses in this section

focuses on the brain size of the ancient predeces-sor species of modern humans. It is claimed thatbiologists use brain size to determine the tempo-ral relationship of the species that led up to hu-mans, but that this is invalid because there is norelationship between brain size and intelligence.The logical disconnect in this statement is fairlyobvious. Even if brain size had no relation to in-telligence, it would still be possible to determinethe approximate ages of various fossil specimens.Earlier species had smaller brains, and modernhumans have larger brains. Ignoring the issue ofintelligence, this gap in sizes must be filled by in-termediate examples. These examples exist andshow a correlation between the age of the fossilsand brain size. [58] How size is related to mentalability is a much more complicated topic, whichis the origin of the quotes listed in TOL. It hasbeen determined that factors such as brain struc-ture may play an important role in determininghow intelligent a creature is, and that size shouldnot be used as a singular guide to ability. [53]Notwithstanding, this has no effect on whethersize is related to relative age. On this point, theeditors have completely failed even to make a co-

29

herent argument from misappropriated quotes.

Creationists unceasingly attack all evidencefor the evolution of humans from other speciesbecause it deeply impacts their theology and per-ception of people as separate from the rest ofcreation. They must ignore the fossil and otheranthropological evidence and hopelessly searchfor “holes” in which insert religious explanations.When talking about Neanderthals, TOL tries toclaim that they were merely a “race” of humans.Once again, they have misinterpreted the authorthey are quoting, Milford Wolpoff. Wolpoff isusing the term ‘race’ to mean subspecies, not inthe way that people use the word in commonspeech to refer to ethnic variation. [83] Somescientists do argue that Neanderthals should beclassified as a subset of the genus Homo, and ev-idence shows that they interbred with humansat some point. [48] However, humans and Nean-derthals differ greatly in morphology, and evena layman would be hard-pressed to confuse thefossils. In this instance, TOL continues its pat-tern of misrepresentation of sources and poor re-search.

2.20 The Good Book

The final question in the brochure asks Is it Rea-sonable to Believe the Bible? Here, the realgoal of TOL is seen in stark relief. Through-out the previous 30-odd pages, the editors haveattempted to argue largely along “scientific” and“logical” lines, only occasionally featuring overtreligious statements. This technique is nowabandoned for direct and unashamed Bible pro-motion. It would be understandable if a readerof TOL is confused by the transition. Since whendid the Bible become important in cutting edgescientific research? Why should the reader care

at all what the Bible says about anything? TOLis assuming that the target audience is alreadysympathetic to their position and is merely sup-plying the “obvious” conclusion: if evolution isfalse, the Bible must be correct! This unsup-ported leap in logic is incomprehensible unlessthe reader already believes that the Bible is theword of God. In that case, the author is foolishlyassuming the very thing he has yet to prove.

As this essay is focused on evaluating the ev-idence for scientific claims, the portions of TOLdealing with arguments for Biblical accuracy orthe tertiary value of its contents are irrelevant.It is simple enough to list many Biblical pas-sages that are in conflict with scientific fact∗,but as these could be dismissed with slipperyarguments about metaphorical interpretation ormiraculous events, further space will not be de-voted to them here.

To conclude the critique of TOL, it is nec-essary to address a few of its final statements.The author makes the incredibly condescendingstatement that the Watchtower’s brand of Bibli-cal interpretation “leaves ample room for scien-tific inquiry”. It is not the place of a scientif-ically ignorant religious organization to dictatearbitrary boundaries for science. Similar decla-rations made hundreds of years ago by religiousauthorities regarding astronomy and medicinewere ignored and the ensuing progress in thesefields revolutionized human civilization. Groupsthat have granted scripture precedence over sci-ence are, in time, marginalized by society butcontinue to declare the accuracy of divine reve-lation. The Watchtower is already far down thispath, and its noisy protests against science areevidence of this retrograde trajectory.

To end on a positive note, it is refreshing to

∗Genesis 31:11-13, Joshua 10:12, Leviticus 11:13-19

30

see that TOL rejects the idea that evolution canbe used as a legitimate basis for racism or geno-cide. The brochure also recommends that peo-ple seek out evidence and foster curiosity aboutnature. These recommendations are praisewor-thy, however, actually following them will prob-ably lead to the opposite result from that ad-vocated by TOL. When the scientific evidencehas been investigated thoroughly, and not justby way of Watchtower publications, an unbiasedreader will conclude that evolution is an elegantand powerful explanation of the awesome biolog-ical diversity on Earth.

3.1 Was Life Created?

The second creationist brochure distributed bythe Watchtower Society is Was Life Created?(WLC) It covers some of the same argumentsand material in TOL, but incorporates a widerperspective on what they see as evidence for de-sign. As before, there is a large amount of un-informed criticism of evolution. In addition, theauthor presents a few other arguments relatedto the ecosystem of planet Earth, the highlyadapted nature of many creatures, and someemotional appeals. The brochure, like its com-panion, emphasizes the importance of evidencebut confuses the reader by blending specific,Bible-based ideas with more generic design ar-guments.

Instead of focusing on biology, the initial sub-section of WLC focuses on the physical featuresof Earth that allow life to exist. Factors such asthe location of the planet in the solar system, theatmosphere, the magnetosphere, the water andnitrogen cycle, and the length of the day are allpointed to as proof that Earth must have beendesigned. However, this reasoning is flawed.

The argument implies that the particular bi-ological features of humans and other life formswere somehow determined before the solar sys-tem existed, and that the planet was tailored tofit the creatures that were to live on it. Thisline of thought is backwards. It is not logicallysound to reason from the perspective of a humanon Earth and conclude that the planet had to be“designed” in a certain way for this result to ob-tain. This is because the existence of the persondoing the thinking requires that Earth is a planetcapable of supporting life in the first place. Thefact of existence acts as a sort of ‘screen’ thatkeeps one from evaluating the probability of aspecific set of original starting conditions on theplanet.This is called the observational selection ef-

fect. An example from the philosophical litera-ture will clarify the concept. [75] Imagine thata person is fishing in a lake with a net. After aperiod of time, he discovers that all of the fishthat have been caught in the net are 10 inches ormore in length. He concludes that it is probablethat all the fish in the lake are at least 10 incheslong. However, upon further investigation, hediscovers that the holes in the net are 10 incheswide, meaning that no matter how much fishingis done, there will never be a 4 inch fish in thenet. With this information, he realizes it is im-possible to determine what fraction of the fish inthe lake are larger than 10 inches. Maybe only asmall percentage are that large, or maybe theyall are. The features of the net preclude anyjudgment in this regard.Humans on Earth are faced with a similar sit-

uation. The only way a person would be able toobserve that the Earth is able to support life isif it was able to support life. Any sentient crea-ture that exists will observe that its home planetis capable of supporting life, whatever particular

31

set of physical circumstances this includes. Ex-istence is like the holes in the net. Just as nosmall fish will be caught by a net with big holes,it is impossible, by definition, for life to evolveon an uninhabitable planet.With this in mind, the ability of Earth to

support life should not be surprising. Withouta magnetic field, large multicellular organismswould be unable to survive the radiation expo-sure. Without an atmosphere, not only wouldhumans be bombarded by space debris but theywould not be able to breathe! It is not miracu-lous that the Earth is a livable ecosphere. If itwas not, there would not be anyone around torealize it.The same goes for the water and nitrogen

cycles. Both processes are physical phenom-ena that result directly from chemistry. Thesefeatures allow life to exist, but do not appearto be designed for life. In contrast, some as-pects of the planet are harmful to life. Overthe four billion year history of Earth, the cli-mate and environment have changed radically,including vast stretches of time during whichcomplicated organisms could not survive. [82]In fact, large portions of the planet, like desertsand arctic regions, are currently hostile to mostlife forms, including humans. On multiple occa-sions, catastrophic events including meteor im-pacts and rapid climate change have wiped outmuch of the global ecosystem. Additionally, thesame molten core that generates the protectivemagnetosphere also causes plate tectonics, whichis responsible for volcanoes, earthquakes, andtsunamis that can kill hundreds or thousands ofpeople. The Earth is without doubt the mosthospitable planet yet discovered, but it is notsome supernaturally-ordained paradise for hu-mans.To put it in mathematical perspective, there

are billions of galaxies in the universe, and bil-lions of stars in each galaxy. Many stars haveplanets, a fact scientists were only able to con-firm recently. Statistically speaking, some ofthese planets will resemble Earth in their abil-ity to support life. The search for these types ofplanets is a very active field of research. [5] TheEarth happens to be one of possibly millions ofplanets in the galaxy that are habitable.

3.2 Life Finds a Way

The other factor that explains why such a vastquantity of living things thrive on Earth is thatevolution is extremely effective at adapting pop-ulations to the environment and filling out dif-ferent survival niches. Life can adapt to even themost extreme conditions like high acidity, hightemperature, high radiation, and so on. It fits it-self to conditions, conditions need not be tailoredfor it. The sun does not exist so that humans cansee. Human eyes evolved to see the wavelengthsthat the sun shines in.Life also changes the environment. The only

reason there is such a huge amount of oxygen inthe atmosphere is because photosynthetic bacte-ria made it. Once there was sufficient oxygen,things that breathe oxygen could evolve. Lifeconstantly changes in response to the biosphereand stays in a dynamic equilibrium. Nothing isstable over the long term. That is why 99.9%of all species that have ever existed have goneextinct. [65] This could be seen as incompetentdesign, but it is actually the result of natural se-lection killing things that do not change. Thisrich biological history of constant failure and oc-casional success is recorded in the rocks and inthe DNA of every living thing.The next subsection of WLC highlights the

32

topic of biomimetics. It asserts that becausehuman engineers are learning things from theanatomy of animals, a master designer must havecreated the animals in the first place. The ideais intuitively appealing, but falters when investi-gated.The first problem is the implicit assumption

that the features of evolved creatures should bepoorly adapted or random amalgams of cells. Ofcourse, evolution predicts that organisms will bevery well adapted to their environment. Overbillions of years, one should expect the methodsand mechanisms of life to be finely honed forsurvival, producing what could be called ‘appar-ent design’. It would be very strange indeed ifwhales were bad at swimming and birds at flying.However, evolution is a blind, natural processthat cannot foresee the future, cannot changethe past, and usually finds the easiest path toa solution. Hence, there should be evidence ofunplanned changes and a history of adaptation.This evidence is found in abundance in the

natural world. To start, evolution cannot seethe future. It must make do with existing struc-tures, existing DNA, and whatever mutationscome along. It is not possible for a mindlessprocess to “plan” for future changes. A greatexample is the mammalian inner ear. The tinybones that form this structure and allow hear-ing did not just pop into existence and becomeuseful. They developed over a long period fromthe jaw bones present in reptilian ancestors. [47]There is extensive fossil evidence for this transi-tion. [7] This shows that parts of the anatomycan be modified and used for entirely new pur-poses and that intermediate forms of a particularorgan or system do not necessarily have the samefunction as its precursors. Evolution is resource-ful with the limited tools and raw materials thatit has. [31]

As a result of this tendency to use exist-ing features to new ends, there also exists adevelopmental record of particular structuresthat reveals their evolutionary history. For in-stance, mammals, which give birth to live young,evolved from reptiles, which lay eggs and requirean egg tooth or a caruncle to open the shell whenhatching. Revealing the evolutionary connec-tion, during the development of marsupial mam-mals like the koala or bandicoot, the developinganimal becomes encapsulated in a translucenteggshell that is reabsorbed before birth. Thesecreatures also retain a vestigial caruncle eventhough there is no shell to escape from. [79]Remnants of the previous reproductive processis clear evidence that these animals shared com-mon ancestors with reptiles.Evolution takes the “path of least resistance”

when modifying biological structures. This leadsto “designs” that can be puzzlingly round-aboutif one tries to understand them as being plannedby an intelligent designer. Take the recurrentlaryngeal nerve. Instead of running directly toits destination, as in fish, the mammalian ver-sion splits in two, with one part plunging downto the base of the neck, around other structures,and then back up the neck. In animals with longnecks, like a giraffe, the superfluous length ofthe nerve can amount to many feet. [11] A simi-larly circuitous anomaly is seen in the vas defer-ens, the seminal ducts which connect the testesto the penis. In human males, instead of tak-ing the obvious route between the two intimatelysituated organs, the duct runs up and over theureter and then back down to its terminationpoint. (Williams plan and purpose) No super-natural, or even mediocre designer would craftthese needlessly lengthy plumbing arrangementsif he was “brilliant” and “orderly”. Evolution,however, with no idea where certain structures

33

may end up, simply makes the easiest incremen-tal change possible. A solution arrived at by along chain of short, easy steps is often more com-plicated than that which could have been madeby one larger, deliberate step. [59]

Figure 3.7: Circuitous path of the laryngealnerve.

Figure 3.8: Redundant length of vas deferens.

The purpose of these examples is show thatnature is not made up of perfectly designed or-ganisms. For every elegant, highly adapted or-gan or system, there is another that is com-promised by the limits of evolutionary change.Blind, incremental change can produce finelyhoned mechanisms, like hydrodynamic fish andefficient wings, but it simultaneously leads tovestigial structures and processes. It also resultsin the vast numbers of animals and entire speciesthat die or go extinct.To return to the original thread of the argu-

ment, it is true that engineers attempt to mimicbiological mechanisms in order to improve theirown designs. A fact that WLC forgets to men-tion is that engineers are also directly utilizingthe process behind natural “design”. In fieldsthat require the optimization of many interre-lated factors, engineers are now using geneticor evolutionary algorithms to computationallysearch out the best design. Such algorithmstake the features of some system, like an air-plane or a rocket engine, and assign them tovirtual genes and chromosomes. [57, 45] Thesegenes are then randomly changed and recom-bined. The results are then evaluated accordingto the design specifications. The best examplesare automatically selected and then “bred” to-gether with more random mutation and recom-bination. Over thousands of generations, the op-timal design is found. Trying out all of these dif-ferent permutations, or trying to engineer themfrom the top down would be impossibly difficultand time consuming for any human designer, butevolution and selection provide a tidy solution.According to the style of argument favored byWLC, the fact that engineers are aping an un-intelligent natural process to improve their ma-chines should prove that natural processes musthave created complex biology.

34

3.3 Just Facts, Please

The following subsection is titled Evolution:myths and facts. Contrary to this informativesounding headline, the pages include no clarify-ing facts but merely misrepresented science. Itstarts with the tired claim that microevolution,which the Watchtower accepts as change withinthe undefined category ‘kind’, is fundamentallydifferent from macroevolution, which they imag-ine to be something like the transition betweenapes and humans.As pointed out on previous pages, this is a

false distinction based on a faulty understand-ing of what evolution actually claims. All evo-lutionary changes are relatively minor. So-called microevolution and macroevolution arethe same process viewed on different time scales.Macroevolution is not the claim that one type oforganism suddenly gave rise to an entirely differ-ent organism. There was never a point in historywhen a reptile magically gave birth to a mam-mal. The transition between these two pointswas gradual, not instantaneous. Accepting thereality of small evolutionary changes alone butnot the accumulation of these changes is likeaccepting that a plane can fly from New Yorkto Pennsylvania, but not from Maine to Cali-fornia. At the base level of the genome, thereis no qualitative difference between the geneticchanges that take place on the micro or macrotimescale. Large accumulations of evolutionarychange take millions of years to form, which iswhy biologists rely on genetic and fossil evidenceto reconstruct that history. The smaller con-stituent changes, like that from one species toanother, can be seen in the lab.Speciation can happen when two populations

are split, either literally by geography or bycertain reproductive behavior, and the separate

groups slowly evolve apart until they no longerinterbreed. Both species are quite similar, butthey are still different species. After billions ofyears of population divergence and evolution, thetips of the evolutionary tree are radically differ-ent. It is crucial to remember that species do notjust “turn into” other species. They split, andthe descendent populations then share a com-mon ancestor. Mice and dogs share a commonancestor. That does not mean that there was ahalf-mouse, half-dog transitional species in thepast. These creatures are related by a multi-leveled hierarchy, not a direct line. Observed in-stances of speciation are plentiful. [55, 72, 27, 32]

3.4 A Curious Case

In an attempt to discredit the vast number ofexamples of speciation and the evidence of com-mon ancestry among all organisms, WLC quotesa single source multiple times: the writings ofWolf-Ekkehard Lonnig. The objectivity of thissource is highly questionable, as Lonnig is a longtime member of Jehovah’s Witnesses and a cre-ationist. [4] The book he authored that is refer-enced in WLC also fails to inspire confidence, notbeing from a prestigious university press but pro-duced by an obscure Indian pay-to-print publish-ing service. [71] Lonnig’s opinions are not sharedby his colleagues at the Max Planck Gesellschaftor the scientific community. In fact, when heposted several creationist essays to his profes-sional website, his employer pulled the pagesdown out of embarrassment. [1, 52] The reper-cussions of this incident are surely what neces-sitates the disclaimer printed in WLC which ex-plains that Lonnig’s opinions are his own and arenot to be associated with the MPG.

There are some half-truths in Lonnig’s writ-

35

ings. Species do have certain limits. It is phys-ically impossible to breed a 40 foot tall humanbecause the skeleton is unable to bear the weight.Some biological machinery does remain intactover millions of years. Deeply embedded geneticand developmental pathways rarely change be-cause they are so integral to the survival of theorganism. Most importantly, natural selection isnot the only mechanism for evolutionary change.Other processes like genetic drift and recombina-tion play an important role.What about Lonnig specific claims regarding

mutation breeding? He characterizes the fieldas overly ambitious, with nothing to show for it-self and no modern Western practitioners. Whilemutation breeding proved not to be as effectiveas first hoped, it is absolutely false to say that nobeneficial plant varieties were obtained with themethod. There exists many crucial plant speciesthat were improved with respect to hardiness ornutritional value. [80, 2] The decline in popular-ity of the field is due to the rise of more sophis-ticated and scientifically “exciting” genetic en-gineering techniques in advanced countries, notsome gross failure. [81] Further, the scope ofthis research is so limited that it provides no ev-idence against the possibility of speciation in alarger context.In making its argument against mutation

breeding, WLC stumbles by admitting that moretraditional forms of breeding are effective at pro-ducing superior plant varieties. Selective artifi-cial breeding is a human-directed version of nat-ural selection. Plants randomly mix their genesduring reproduction, and by choosing the plantswith the most desirable features, humans canradically change these species. Examples of theeffects of domestication and artificial selectioninclude dogs, cows, corn, sunflowers, and ba-nanas. While these organisms are still usually

classified as the same species, they are quali-tatively very different. [34] This demonstratesthat selective pressures can change living thingsin drastic ways.

3.5 How New is ‘New’?

These changes, though, will not make some or-ganism magically become “an entirely new one”.This is WLC’s repeated error in understandinghow evolution works. Biologists do not expect acorn plant to start making seeds that becomepotato plants, no matter how much selectiontakes place. These species have a shared ances-tor, several “levels” away on the tree of life, thatsplit into two or more separate populations mil-lions of years ago. In the same way, a cat willnot turn into a dog by selecting dog-like featuresin generation after generation of cats, nor woulda biologist expect it to. They share a distantcommon ancestor, so they are related, but onecannot transmute into the other.

By repeatedly saying that evolution is notmaking “entirely new” species from previousspecies, WLC is attacking a strawman conceptthat no scientist would ever expound. In reality,one population splits into separate groups, andthese organisms evolve independently accordingto differing environments and other effects. Ini-tially, the differences will seem quite small. Sosmall, that if the populations were brought backtogether into the same genetic pool, the differ-ences would quickly be washed away by geneflow. However, after a sufficiently lengthy isola-tion period, they would truly be different species,and would not interbreed. They remain closelyrelated to the common ancestor. Only long agesof repeated branching and diversification ulti-mately lead to the amount of diversity seen to-

36

day.WLC attempts to build off of Lonnig’s dubious

case against speciation with a sloppy descriptionof Darwin’s famous finches. The author of WLCis so unfamiliar with he ground upon which hetreads that facts taken for granted in the scien-tific community are seen by him as surprising orscandalous. The fact that different populationscan interbreed and induce enough gene flow toremove any large distinctions is not new knowl-edge. Creationists are stuck thinking that or-ganisms exist in strict, inflexible categories. Butbiology is not a rigid arrangement of elements,it is constantly in flux. For this reason, the factthat two species may merge through the flow ofgenes seems strange to them, but not to actualscientists.The Galapagos finches are still finches. This

is to be expected. Over a short period of time,one would not expect very large changes. Thefact that WLC expects a finch to become some-thing “new”, perhaps a mouse or fish, just under-lines how deep its lack of scientific understandingis. By remaining stupefied that a bird has notmorphed into a “new” creature, creationists missthe importance of the finches. They demonstratehow natural selection works and how species arerelated by common ancestors. [16]WLC also fails to grasp what George C.

Williams and Jeffrey Schwartz mean when theysay that natural selection does not “create any-thing new”. This is true. The point biolo-gists are trying to make is that natural selectiononly chooses among individuals that already ex-ist. The new information comes from geneticchanges. Natural selection is just a pruningmechanism. It does not cause genetic change.Genetic change happens, and then natural selec-tion can operate. The distinction is apparentlytoo subtle for the Watchtower writing staff to

discern. While scientifically incompetent, theyfeel comfortable enough to smear the NationalAcademy of Sciences by accusing it of biased pre-sentation of evidence. This is nearly comical andcertainly ironic given the blatant misappropria-tion of sources and facts that occurs in their ownpublications.

The final topic in this subsection is merelya regurgitation of failed arguments and distor-tions about the fossil record that were featuredin TOL. Content to gloss over the wealth of fos-sils that paleontology has discovered and cate-gorized, WLC just keeps reiterating twisted de-scriptions of concepts like evolutionary stasis. Itthen tries to “catch” Richard Lewontin admit-ting that the only reason he accepts the evidencefor evolution is because he is godless, or some-thing. In reality, Lewontin is just explaining thefact that science looks for natural explanations,and that because of their vagueness and inabilityto be tested, supernatural explanations are be-yond the purview of science. [54] The philosoph-ical necessity for this arrangement was coveredearlier in this essay.

3.6 Tin Foil Hats

To conclude, WLC implies that evolutionary bi-ology is some sort of vast conspiracy by agnos-tic or atheistic scientists to mislead the popula-tion for some unstated purpose. Rodney Stark,a sociology professor at the Christian affiliatedBaylor University, is quoted as saying that at re-search universities “. . . the religious people mustkeep their mouths shut.” This entire idea isridiculous given the fact that many scientists arereligious, including the famous biologists Fran-cisco Ayala and Ken Miller. [14] What WLCtries to obscure is that the overwhelming major-

37

ity of biologists, believers and unbelievers alike,accept evolution.

3.7 Myths Misused

To rest its argument, WLC sets out trying toreconcile the Biblical creation myth with scien-tific knowledge about the origin of the universe,Earth, and life. Quite aware that the Genesisaccount sounds entirely implausible and illogicalto modern ears, the author immediately startsdispensing weak apologetic arguments. To ex-plain how there can be a day and night beforethe sun existed, he speculates wildly that thelight from the preexisting sun was “somehow”blocked, “possibly by thick clouds”. There isno evidence presented for this scenario. If lit-eralism is the rule, the Bible clearly states thatGod made the sun and moon after day and nightwere established and even after vegetation hadbeen created. Note that terrestrial plants arecreated before animals, in conflict with knownbiological history. The Bible also says that starswere created after the Earth, contrary to cosmol-ogy. Strained, implausible harmonizations areall WLC is left with to satisfy skeptical mod-ern readers of Genesis. Of course, the ancientHebrews were writing mythical poetic literaturethat was not meant to be interpreted literally bypeople living 3,000 years later in a world of math-ematical physics, computers, and space travel.

WLC is also quick to tamp down any idea thatthe progressive appearance of more complicatedlife forms over billions of years lends credenceto evolution, even though this evidence stronglysupports the theory. It admits that the Bibleprovides no definition for the unscientific cate-gory ‘kind’, and offers none of its own. The au-thor then incorrectly states that the fossil record

supports special creation events.

WLC further asserts that scientists reject theBiblical creation account because of externalphilosophical reasons. This is inane. Scien-tists reject the Biblical creation myth for thesame reasons they reject native American cre-ation stories, the Babylonian Enuma Elis, theNorse Prose Edda, and ancient Greek notions ofprimordial Chaos. None of these myths, howeverbeautiful or interesting, are scientific in nature.They contain no testable empirical content, andfavor mystical and metaphorical explanations ofthe universe. None of these stories make scien-tific predictions, despite credulous claims thatthe Bible writers knew that the universe had abeginning and that life appeared progressively.These “advanced”, “scientifically accurate” no-tions are vague and typical of ancient literature.The prevalence of magical and unscientific eventsin the Bible provides sufficient evidence to con-clude that the writers had the same premod-ern and scientifically illiterate worldview as everyother contemporary culture.

3.8 Does it Feel Like Data?

The ultimate page of WLC wraps up thebrochure with a series of emotional appeals. In atransparent argument from consequence, the au-thor insists that accepting the scientific evidencefor evolution leads one inevitably to acceptingthe following notions: life is pointless, God doesnot exist, and the future of humanity is unavoid-ably bleak and terrible. On the other hand, re-jecting science leads to a wonderful immortal ex-istence full of “loving purpose” and obeying God.No actual evidence is presented for these extrav-agant claims, but the author is careful to clarifythat “. . . such a belief is not based on mere wish-

38

ful thinking.” A reader should be excused forgetting the opposite impression.

4.1 Conclusion

To conclude this essay, it is helpful to reviewthe general tactics and motivations for TOLand WLC. Both works are philosophically naive,with no understanding of what science is, how itis done, or what types of questions it can an-swer. More egregiously, the authors and editors,whether out of malice or incompetence, misrep-resent nearly all of their sources. Nuanced con-cepts are bludgeoned with unadulterated scien-tific ignorance. Cogent argument is abandoned,with neighboring sentences occasionally lackingany discernible logical relationship. While pay-ing lip service to “investigating the evidence”and “looking at both sides”, the documents failto present any cogent description of the idea theyare arguing against. In the eyes of creationists,evolution is a random collection of impossibleevents and scientifically disproven speculations.It is interesting to wonder what exactly theyimagine tens of thousands of trained biologistsare doing all day in their labs if evolution is soobviously false that a 32 page brochure can con-clusively debunk it.

The goal of these Watchtower documents isto present a caricature of science, while covertlyinserting as many unsubstantiated ideas as pos-sible into the conversation. The authors makeno attempt to conceal their Biblical biases, butthey also fail to connect broad design-centeredarguments to any particular theology. Even ifa reader was convinced by their basic case, whyshould one accept the Biblical God? The Watch-tower assumes that the audience is going to grantthem the existence of the supernatural, the truth

of Christianity more broadly, and literal methodsof Biblical interpretation including complete in-errancy. None of these concepts are supportedby evidence in the text, but they are necessaryto reach the supposedly “obvious” conclusionpresented by the Watchtower. The authors ofTOL and WLC insult readers’ intelligence andtake them to be uninformed, minimally skepti-cal rubes.The superficial goal of these brochures is no-

ble. It is important to ask about the originsof life, humanity, and the universe itself. Thescientific pursuit of these most ultimate ques-tions is one of the greatest adventures ever em-barked upon by humans. It is vitally importantto understand what is known about reality andhow it is known. Religion, myth, and literaturemay have a place in many peoples’ lives, but notin the rigorous scientific investigation of nature.Everyone should look at the evidence, unencum-bered by ancient biases or preconceived notions.The world is surely a wondrous, awesome placein which to live. Understanding the scientificpicture of how it came to be that way does notendanger this fact.

39

Bibliography

[1] Abbott. Axeing of website article sparksrow at max planck. Nature, 422:460, April2003.

[2] International Atomic Energy Agency.Plant breeding and genetics, August 2010.http://www-naweb.iaea.org/nafa/pbg

/index.html.

[3] Bard. A systems biology view of evolu-tionary genetics. BioEssays, 32(7):559–563,July 2010.

[4] Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Whywe believe in a creator. The Watchtower,pages 21–23, September 2006.

[5] Borucki. Kepler space mission: Detectionof earth-size planets in the habitable zoneof solar-like stars. In Aerospace ConferenceIEEE, pages 1–2, 2010.

[6] Szostak Budin. Expanding roles for diversephysical phenomena during the origin of life.Annual Review of Biophysics, 39:245–263,2010.

[7] Robert Carroll. Vertebrate Paleontology andEvolution. W. H. Freeman and Co., 1988.

[8] Cela-Conde and Ayala. Human Evolution.Oxford University Press, 2007.

[9] NGM Blog Central. Darwinius andthe real missing link, August 2010.

http://blogs.ngm.com/blog central/

2009/05/darwinius-and-the-real-

missing-link.html.

[10] Simon Conway Morris. Crucible of Cre-ation. Oxford University Press, 1998.

[11] Richard Dawkins. The Greatest Show onEarth: The Evidence for Evolution. FreePress, 2009.

[12] Domning. The earliest known fullyquadrupedal sirenian. Nature, 413:625–627,2001.

[13] W. Ford Doolittle. Uprooting the treeof life. Scientific American, pages 90–95,February 2000.

[14] Ecklund and Scheitle. Religion amongacademic scientists: Distinctions, disci-plines, and demographics. Social Problems,54(2):289–307, May 2007.

[15] Editorial. Darwin was wrong. New Scien-tist, page 5, January 2009.

[16] Abzhanov et al. The calmodulin pathwayand evolution of elongated beak morphologyin darwin’s finches. Nature, 442:563–567,2006.

[17] Barrick et al. Genome evolution and adap-tation in a long-term experiment with es-

40

cherichia coli. Nature, 461:1243–1247, Oc-tober 2009.

[18] Bennett et al. Allium cepa l. cultivars fromfour continents compared by flow cytome-try show nuclear dna constancy. Annals ofBotany, 85:351–357, 2000.

[19] Benson et al. Study of the therapeutic ef-fects of intercessory prayer (step) in cardiacbypass patients: A multicenter randomizedtrial of uncertainty and certainty of receiv-ing intercessory prayer. American HeartJournal, 151(4):934–942, April 2006.

[20] Berger et al. Australopithecus sediba: Anew species of homo-like australopith fromsouth africa. Science, 328(5975):195–204,2010.

[21] Bonner et al. Cloned endogenous retrovi-ral sequences from human dna. Proceed-ings of the National Academy of Sciences,79(15):4709–4713, August 1982.

[22] Brown et al. A new small-bodied homininfrom the late pleistocene of flores. Nature,431:1055–1061, 2004.

[23] Choudhary et al. A steroelectronic effect inprebiotic nucleotide synthesis. ACS Chem-ical Biology, 5(7):655–657, 2010.

[24] Daeschler et al. A devonian tetrapod-likefish and the evolution of the tetrapod bodyplan. Nature, 440:757–763, 2006.

[25] Enger et al. Concepts in Biology. TheMcGraw-Hill Companies, 2002.

[26] Gompel et al. Chance caught on the wing:cis-regulatory evolution and the origin ofpigment patterns in drosophila. Nature,433:481–487, 2004.

[27] Herrel et al. Rapid large-scale evolutionarydivergence in morphology and performanceassociated with exploitation of a differentdietary resource. Proceedings of the Na-tional Academy of Sciences, 105(12):4792–4795, 2008.

[28] Johnston et al. Rna-catalyzed rna poly-merization: Accurate and general rna-templated primer extension. Science,292:1319–1325, May 2001.

[29] Kvenvolden et al. Nonprotein amino acidsin the murchison meteorite. Proceed-ings of the National Academy of Sciences,68(2):486–490, February 1971.

[30] Martin et al. Age of neoproterozoic bilatar-ian body and trace fossils, white sea, russia:Implications for metazoan evolution. Sci-ence, 288:841–845, 2000.

[31] Matsuoka et al. Neural crest origins of theneck and shoulder. Nature, 436:347–355,2005.

[32] McKinnon et al. Evidence for ecology’s rolein speciation. Nature, 429:294–298, 2004.

[33] Okamura et al. Frequent appear-ance of novel protein-coding sequencesby frameshift translation. Genomics,88(6):690–697, December 2006.

[34] Roberts et al. Human induced rotationand reorganization of the brain of domes-tic dogs. PLoS ONE, 5(7), July 2010.

[35] Schubin et al. The pectoral fin of tiktaalikroseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb.Nature, 440:764–771, 2006.

41

[36] Seiffert et al. Convergent evolutionof anthropoid-like adaptations in eocenceadapiform primates. Nature, 461:1118–1121, August 2009.

[37] Simmons et al. Primitive early eocene batfrom wyoming and the evolution of flightand echolocation. Nature, 451:818–821,February 2008.

[38] Sutherland et al. Synthesis of activatedpyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebioticallyplausible conditions. Nature, 459:239–242,March 2009.

[39] Swafford et al. Molecular Systematics. Sin-auer Associates, 1996.

[40] Tanaka et al. Amino acid replacement stud-ies of human cytochrome c by a comple-mentation system using cyc1 deficient yeast.The Journal of Biochemistry, 104:477–480,1988.

[41] Thewissen et al. Whales originated fromaquatic artiodactyls in the eocene epoch ofindia. Nature, 450:1190–1194, 2007.

[42] Venter et al. Creation of a bacterial cell con-trolled by a chemically synthesized genome.Science, 329(5987):52–56, July 2010.

[43] Xu et al. A basal troodontid from the earlycretaceous of china. Nature, 415:780–784,2002.

[44] Faith and Cranston. Could a cladogramthis short have arisen by chance alone?:on permutation tests for cladistic structure.Cladistics, 7(1), 1991.

[45] Farnell and Williams. Genetic algorithm forion thruster grid design. In Pulsed Power

Conference IEEE International, pages 670–673, 2007.

[46] Douglas Futuyma. Evolutionary Biology.Sinauer Associates, 1998.

[47] Scott Gilbert. Developmental Biology. Sin-auer Associates, 1997.

[48] Hamblin and Di Rienzo. Detection of thesignature of natural selection in humans:Evidence from the duffy blood group locus.The American Journal of Human Genetics,66(5):1669–1679, May 2000.

[49] Huang and Ferris. One-step, regioselectivesynthesis of up to 50-mers of rna oligomersby montmorillonite catalysis. Journal of theAmerican Chemical Society, 128:8914–8919,2006.

[50] Howard Hughes Medical Insti-tute. Szostak lab, August 2010.http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/

szostakweb/index.html.

[51] J. Craig Venter Institute. First self-replicating synthetic bacterial cell, August2010. http://www.jcvi.org/cms/press/

press-releases/full-text/article

/first-self-replicating-synthetic-

bacterial-cell-constructed-by-j-

craig-venter-institute -researcher/.

[52] Kutschera. Designer scientific literature.Nature, 423:116, May 2003.

[53] Roger Lewin. Human Evolution: An Illus-trated Introduction. Blackwell, 2005.

[54] Lewontin. Billions and billions of demons.The New York Review, page 31, January1997.

42

[55] Macnair and Christie. Reproductive isola-tion as a pleiotropic effect of copper toler-ance in mimulus guttatus. Heredity, 50:295–302, 1983.

[56] Lynn Margulis and Rene Foster. Symbio-sis as a Source of Evolutionary Innovation:Speciation and Morphogenesis. MIT Press,1991.

[57] Andre C. Marta. Parametric study of a ge-netic algorithm using a aircraft design opti-mization problem.

[58] McHenry. Tempo and mode in human evo-lution. Proceedings of the National Academyof Sciences, 91:6780–6786, 1994.

[59] Mehta and Wainwright. Raptorial jaws inthe throat help moray eels swallow largeprey. Nature, 449:79–82, 2007.

[60] Alexandre Meinesz. How Life Began:Evolution’s Three Geneses. University ofChicago Press, 2008.

[61] Richard Morris. The Evolutionists. Macmil-lan, 2002.

[62] CBS News. Controversial “ida” fos-sil no missing link, August 2010.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/

2009/10/22/tech/ main5408922.shtml.

[63] Nobelprize.org. The nobel prizein chemistry 1989, August 2010.http://nobelprize.org/nobel prizes/

chemistry/laureates/1989/press.html.

[64] Norell and Clarke. Fossil that fills a criticalgap in avian evolution. Nature, 409:181–184, 2001.

[65] American Museum of Natural His-tory. Extinction, August 2010.http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/

dinosaurs/extinction/mass.php.

[66] National Museum of Natural His-tory. Human fossils, August 2010.http://humanorigins.si.edu/

evidence/human-fossils.

[67] Orgel and Crick. Anticipating the rnaworld. some past speculations on the ori-gin of life: where are they today? FASEBJournal, 7(1):238–239, 1993.

[68] Massimo Pigliucci. Is there funda-mental scientific disagreement aboutthe theory of evolution?, August 2010.http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.

com/2008/07/is-there-fundamental-

scientific.html.

[69] Exploring Origins Project. Ex-ploring life’s origins, August 2010.http://exploringorigins.org/index.

html.

[70] Stanford Report. Reading the fine printtakes on a whole new meaning, August2010. http://news.stanford.edu/news

/2009/january28/small-012809.html.

[71] Transworld Research. Transworldresearch network, August 2010.http://www.trnres.com/services.htm.

[72] Rice and Salt. The evolution of reproduc-tive isolation as a correlated character un-der sympatric conditions: experimental ev-idence. Evolution, 44:1140–1152, 1990.

43

[73] Rose and Oakley. The new biology: beyondthe modern synthesis. Biology Direct, 2(1),November 2007.

[74] Shapiro. A simpler origin for life. ScientificAmerican, pages 24–31, June 2007.

[75] Sober. Absence of evidence and evidenceof absence: Evidential transitivity in con-nection with fossils, fishing, fine-tuning,and firing squads. Philosophical Studies,143(1):63–90, March 2009.

[76] Sverdlov. Retroviruses and primate evolu-tion. Bioessays, 22(2):161–171, February2000.

[77] Theobald. A formal test of the theoryof universal common ancestry. Nature,465:219–222, May 2010.

[78] The New York Times. Translatingstories of life forms etched in stone, Au-gust 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/

2010/07/27/science/27creatures.html?

r=3&ref=science.

[79] Tyndale-Biscoe and Renfree. ReproductivePhysiology of Marsupials. Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 1987.

[80] Colorado State University. His-tory of plant breeding, August 2010.http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/

transgeniccrops/history.html.

[81] A. M. van Harten. Mutation Breeding. Cam-bridge University Press, 1998.

[82] Wallace and Hobbs. Atmospheric Science.Elsevier, 2006.

[83] Wolpoff. How neanderthals inform humanvariation. American Journal of PhysicalAnthropology, 139(1):91–102, May 2009.

44