This is part of multi-section entry I am working on for my personal notes (the previous entries dealt with astronomy, geology, etc.).
Biology was one science conspicuously absent from the above discussion of an old Earth. The reason is, the main evidence biology has for an old Earth is evolution, which could be argued, but YECs, to not support an old Earth but rather to require one. YECs also claim that biologists reject evolution because “evolution is only a theory”…this is not so.
Quote:
“We emphasize that the meaning of the word “theory”, when used by scientists, is not
“speculation” as it is in ordinary English usage. Failure to make this distinction has been
prominent in creationist challenges to evolution. The creationists have spoken of evolution as
“only a theory”, as if it were little better than a guess. In fact, the theory of evolution is supported
by such massive evidence that most biologists view repudiation of evolution as tantamount to
repudiation of reason.” (Cleveland P. Hickman Jr., Larry S. Roberts, & Allan Larson, WCB
McGraw-Hill, 1997, Integrated Principles of Zoology: 10th Edition, p13)
|
Anyway, let’s see how the two explanations fair for a key biological event…the origin of humans. The scientific explanation for the origin of humans is, of course, evolution; while the YEC position is special creation (divine intervention)
Scientific origin of humans
What does science have that verifies its position that humans are the results of evolution? Fully supported and demonstrated underlying principles, for one. Science has shown that DNA stores genetic information, in its base sequences. Science has shown that it is the genotype (genetic makeup) of an organism that determines its phenotype (outward appearance or biochemical properties). Science has shown that changes made to DNA base sequences result in altered phenotypes. Science has shown that mutations – changes in the DNA (that can be inherited) – can occur spontaneously, changing the information stored and therefore the phenotype. Thus, there is a fully supported scientific explanation for why organisms are as they are as well as how their morphology/appearance can change over time, completely naturally. Logic and experimentation have shown the next key factor: natural selection. Because of individual differences in members of a population, some will be more fit than others: in the particular environment the population finds itself in, some individuals will have a better chance of surviving and/or reproducing, thus having a better chance of passing on their own genes to the next generation. As part of adapting to the environment, associated with changes in the allelic frequencies of the population, comes changes in appearance: the population is evolving. Thus, there is a fully supported scientific explanation for how populations evolve. In addition to all of the sound reasoning that indicates speciation would occur in the wild, science also has documented cases of such (for both plants and animals); and speciation is a
macroevolutionary event. Thus, science has a fully supported theoretical model for speciation which has been confirmed by observations.
The rest is often times said to be nothing more than extrapolation...because microevolution and speciation have been observed in the short amount of time that biologists have been examining organisms, there is reason to believe that additional time would allow for larger scale evolution, such “humans from chimps” (sticking with the common misconception). But is this
just extrapolation? No. There is scientific evidence that supports the notion of humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor. First, human and chimp DNA is between 95% and 99% identical (it depends upon whether or not one counts insertions and deletions). Second, the banding patterns of human chromosomes is nearly identical to that of chimps (and some other primates, such as orangutans). Third, one of
Your Friendly Neighborhood Administrator
