Evolutionists and Creationists

Evolutionists vs. Creationists

In 1830 the Englishman Charles Lyell published the first volume of his epoch-making Principles of Geology, in which he showed that the force that had shaped Earth in the past were the same as those at work today. By then it was becoming clear that man had coexisted with many animals long vanished, and in w836, the Dane Christian Thomsen laid the foundations of modem archaeology by his scheme of successive Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages, with the Stone Age reaching extremely far back in time.

Public as well as scientific interest in prehistory grew apace. More and more fossils were collected, in the Old and New Worlds alike, and reconstructions were made. When the Crystal Palace exposition opened in London in 1856, it included several life-sized statues of dinosaurs. Since they were not labeled, many visitors were puzzled by them. One man guessed that they were intended as an object lesson in temperance, to show what drunkard might expect to see.

In the same year, remains of Neanderthal man first came to light, in Germany. Initially, most biologists denied that this could be an extinct form of human, and various fanciful stories were devised to account for it. Yet evidence continued to accumulate, while the growth of geological knowledge made it less and less easy to believe that such creatures as the dinosaurs had perished in the Biblical flood – that they were, in the phrase of that day, antediluvian.

In 1859 Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species. This stunning demonstration of evolution as an understandable, natural set of processes – a hypothesis which had occurred independently, in less detail, to Alfred Russel Wallace – was followed four years later by another intellectual bombshell, Lyell's book The Antiquity of Man Proved by Geology. At the same time, field workers such as the Frenchmen Boucher de Perthes and Edouard Lartet were turning up ever more traces of archaic humanity. When Darwin issued The Descent of Man 1871, he did not “prove we are descended from apes”. What he did was describe how humans and simians could have stemmed from a common ancestor; the idea that this had happened was, by then, current.

Humans and simians stemmed from a common ancestor. Illustration by Elena.

Of course, it had met with much opposition, both popular and scholarly. Southerners during the American Civil War were fond of saying that maybe Yankees came from monkeys all right, but Mar'se Robert E. Lee couldn't be related to anything with a tail. Most clergymen combated every suggestion that the Book of Genesis was not a straightforward piece of reporting.

In fairness we must add that not all did : indeed, some made important contributions to knowledge in this field, especially in France. For that matter, Thomas Henry Huxley's debating opponent, Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, was by no means a bigoted ignoramus, but a cultivated and philanthropic gentleman.

Nonetheless, the data were accumulation remorselessly. In a paper read in 1865 the Austrian monk Gregor Mendel established the basis of genetics. His work went almost unnoticed for a generation, but came back to light after the Dutchman Hugo de Vries had identified the phenomenon of mutation, about 1895. Here was the decisive last factor that Darwin had not known of, the material on which his principles of natural selection and sexual selection operated. Meanwhile, in 1891, another Dutcham, Eugene Dubois, had found in Java the relics of a being that was unequivocally related to man yet far too primitive, too apelike, to be Homo Sapiens.

Meanwhile, too, knowledge was rapidly growing of the world as it had been long before anything like us existed. A clear-cut example in the evolutionary lineage of the horse, established through fossil find by the American O.C. Marsh.

Out of all this, an understanding developed of much more than fossils. Evolution could be seen in action: that is, the principle of evolution made sense out of observations in science and even everyday life. As obvious case is that of industrial melanism. The peppered moth of England darkened, for better disguise against predators, as trees grew coal-sooty during the Industrial Revolution. In our own lifetimes, with decreasing air pollution, the same species is growing lighter again.

Creationists object that this is not a valid example, but represents mere variability. Nobody, the say, has ever seen a whole new species come into existence. That is true enough, as far as it goes – with some possible exceptions among microscopic organisms. However, evolution takes thousands and millions of years to bring about most of the unmistakable changes that evolutionists describe. The evidence is necessarily indirect. But so, just as necessarily, is the evidence for the reality of events chronicled in the Bible.

(By Poul Anderson).

Nobody, the say, has ever seen a whole new species come into existence. Illustration by Elena.