T. James Tofflemire
Professor John King
Pt514 Creation College
Aug., 2009 Book 1 Review
Parker, Gary. Creation Facts of Life How Real Science Reveals the Hand of God, Green Forest, AK., Master Books, (2008)
Dr. Parker has a PhD. Degree in Biology with a minor in Paleontology and gives his reasons for changing from an evolutionist to a creationist in an orderly logical fashion. He discusses the convincing points from the fields of molecular biology, biology and fossils (paleontology) that point to macroevolution as not being true. This is done in a manner most college educated students could follow. This is my thesis. I will provide a synopsis of the book and the main convincing points he uses.
Chap. 1 Evidence of Creation
For his early career, evolution was much more than a scientific theory; it was a total world view, an alternate religion. He was an enthusiastic evolutionary teacher schooled in the details of evolution. Then he met a chemistry professor and a biology professor who had a creation view and challenged him with some questions which lead to several years of open minded investigations of the creation-evolution debate. What convinced him of creation were the ordinary tools of science: logic and observation. On pg. 18 he offers a figure 1 that shows an eroded rock shape vs. a precise arrowhead. One is obviously a result of time, chance and erosion and the other is the result of design. The evolution view is that time, chance struggle and death or TCSD. Time and chance can produce hereditary variation (mutations) and struggle and death produce natural selection (p.16). He makes the point that the creation model can be studied logically and even scientifically just as the evolution model can be.
Two complex parts of every living system are DNA and proteins. DNA is a coiled string with special base units (A,G,C,T) that link. Proteins are also chains that have amino acids that have links as shown in fig. 2 on p. 22. The organization and informational coding of these is very suggestive of creative design and not of randomness. Fig. 4 on p 28 illustrates this. All of our physical characteristics are spelled out in the DNA. Miller’s experiments to make amino acids don’t come close to the complex organization of DNA and proteins. These experiments are unrealistic in explaining creation because oxygen is excluded but it is present in almost everything including ancient rocks. Ammonia, if present would have dissolved in the oceans. The electric sparks that put amino acids together also tears them apart much faster. So Miller added a trap to quickly remove the amino acids. The trap involves creative design and is not common to nature. The amino acids created were a mixture including ones that are poisonous to life (p.26).
Similarly a cell is a complex machine with DNA, proteins, over 75 helper molecules (including RNA and special enzymes) all working together in harmony (p. 29-32). “It takes a living cell about 4 min. to rank out an average protein (500 amino acids) according to DNA specifications” (p.34). This resembles creative design not randomness. “Life is a property of organization, not of substance” (p. 34). He gives the example of a book being written by an unknown method or author, with the materials being ink and paper. To get another better book one wouldn’t expect the ink and paper to do the work by randomness, one would expect an author. “The DNA codes contain more information than a thousand volumes of literary works” (p.36). Evolutionists may argue that crystal formation demonstrates that order can appear spontaneously. “Crystal order, yes, specified complexity, no. The specified complexity in a DNA sequence is nothing like the ordered simplicity or repeat pattern on the ice crystal.” (P35-7) A crystal is a simple repeating pattern produced by the shape and charge of its constituents. Breaking an ice crystal produces some smaller crystals with properties like the original. Breaking a DNA chain produces fragments that are dissimilar in structure and lose their function entirely. “It’s not the stuff (dust) were made of that makes us special; it’s the way we are put together. It’s not the metal and glass that make an airplane fly, nor the ink and paper that write a novel” (p 38). Francis Crick, who shared a Noble Prize for the discovery of DNA’s structure, stated that life could not and did not evolve on earth (p 39). Sir Fred Hoyle, a famed astronomer and mathematician, reached the conclusion after mathematical analyses that believing life could result from time, chance and the properties of matter was like believing that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.(40). Dr. Michael Denton, a prominent molecular biologist wrote a book “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” and stated the chemical evolution scenario as an affront to reason. Dr. Denton does not acknowledge being a Christian, but states that creation may have religious implications but so does evolution. Parker stated that belief in evolution means that there is no God and no creator who sets the rules. Human beings are free to be their own boss and set their own rules (p.11).
For comparative similarities in structure biologists use the term Homology. Why should a person’s arm have the same kind of bone pattern as the leg of a dog or the wing of a bat? There are two basic ideas: The evolutionary idea is descent from a common ancestor. The creation idea is creation according to common design plans. (43-45). Dr. Denton and Dr. Parker note many inconsistencies in the evolutionary idea of decent from one simple ancestor (p.45-50) including the following: 1. Most evolutionists do not claim that hind limbs evolved from forelimbs or vice versa or from a common limb. 2. Sexual organs are difficult to explain as male and females are different. 3. In frogs, 5 digits on limbs grow out from buds on a paddle, while in human embryos, the 5 digits form as the tissue between them is reabsorbed. “Here quite different gene-enzyme mechanisms produce similar patterns” (p.46) 4. Structures in adult crayfish and lobsters are very similar. However the crayfish egg develops directly into the adult form, while the lobster egg reaches the same pattern by going through a free swimming larval stage. 5. Convergent evolution pertains to organisms not closely related that independently acquire similar characteristics while evolving in separate and sometimes varying ecosystems. For example, the complex eye of humans is similar to that of squids, but they have very different ancestors. The creation explanation of using common design features varied for differing environments again makes sense. Some deep sea creatures have very unique lens systems to gather and focus light including lens cylinders, lens mirrors. They make ingenious use of physics and refractions that implies creative design, but have no intermediate evolutionary forms. 6. Hemoglobin is a protein that carries oxygen in red blood cells. It occurs sporadically among invertebrate phyla in no obvious pattern and also in nearly all invertebrates and is even found in some bacteria. In all cases we find a similar molecule. This is difficult for evolutionist to explain but easy for creationist to explain by use of a common design feature. 7. Algae are usually classified into groups on the basis of their pigment (reds, greens, browns, and golden’s). They can also be grouped on their structural complexity (unicellular, colonial, and multi-cellular) and grouped by their type of sexuality (iso, hetero, and oo-gamy). This causes problems for tracing their evolution, but no problems for using certain chosen design features in various combinations. 8. Molecular biology and homology has been used with DNA to create evolutionary trees. However, this has many disagreements with the trees based on fossils or on comparatives anatomy of larger structures and has created large controversies in the evolutionary camp. This paradigm is solved if one uses a mosaic of different created kinds that then can have genetic variation in kinds and undergo microevolution (p.52-3).
Human embryos appear to show gill slits, a yolk sac and a tail on first glance. The evolutionist believes these apparent structures are useless leftovers or vestigial organs of our ancestry. The gill slits are pharyngeal (throat) pouches that house some glands. The yolk sac is a temporary pouch for forming the first blood cells. The tail forms the coccyx or tail bone which is an essential bone structure to support muscles. A related diagram comparing embryos of other species with the human one was authored by Ernst Haeckel in the 1860. This diagram was shown to be an exaggerated fake. The diagrams, although fake, have been used for many years in biology textbooks as recent as 2005. This was used to support the now out of vogue throwback theory that the embryo is supposed to retrace the evolution of its group (p.54-61).
The woodpecker is an example of specially designed creature with many parts working together. If all parts didn’t work the bird would probably not survive. The parts include the following: A very strong pointed beak, a heavy duty skull with shock absorbing tissue between the two, eyelids that snap shut upon the strike, a long tongue with sheath that inserts into the nostril. A Platypus is also unique in combining parts that occur in widely varying species. The parts include the following: milk glands, a leathery egg, and electric signal sensitivity, a wide flat bill, and webbed feet. A woodpecker and a basic cell have irreducible complexity and are compared to a mouse trap. That is to say all parts much be present at once for them to function (p.63-67). Another example of a creature with this unusual complexity is the bombardier beetle. It creates a hot noxious gas by combining hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone’s. It has special enzymes, pressure tanks, and special nerves and muscles to control to operation (p.100-1). Cleaning symbiosis is also difficult to support based on evolution of the fittest. The small cleaning bird or fish could be eaten by the larger predator.
Chap. 2 Darwin and Biological Change
Parker uses the term Microevolution as something both creationists and evolutions believe in. The loose definition of evolution being change through time is not very useful and misleading. Macroevolution is the term used for evolution from a few simple species to man. The classic peppered moths example widely used in textbooks as an example of evolution is somewhat contrived and not a good example of evolution. The light and dark moths were still present before and after the smoke pollution so only the dominance of the population changed not the genes. The moths used for the book pictures were dead ones that were glued to the tree and photographed (p.76-82). There are logical limits to variations or change in a species that have been observed as stated by a number of evolutionary authors Denton, Lewontin. Another widely used example of microevolution is Darwin’s Finches that developed different beaks. It is also likely that the original created Finches (as do all spices) had genes that allow some variation and adaptation within Kind (p101-2). Parker states that a Giraffe’s neck that stretched by evolution is unlikely. It also has auxiliary pumps to get the blood to its head when held high and pressure reducers to lower the pressure when it drinks (p.105).
Mutations are mainly responsible for diseases and degradation. Parker gave six reasons why mutations do not explain evolution across kinds: Reason 1. Progressive mutations building on one another are mathematically improbable. They occur in one in every ten million duplications (1/107) of a DNA molecule. Two successive ones have a probability of 1/1014; three successive, 1/1021 and four- 1/1028. At the 3rd and 4th secessions the ocean and the earth aren’t big enough to hold all the organisms. Bacteria can be made antibiotic resistant by mutation, but such forms are cripples and do not survive well. “The antibiotic resistance carried by plasmids results form enzymes produced to break down the antibiotic. Their resistance is by design. It’s possible God designed antibiotic resistance in bacteria and antibiotic production by fungi, to balance the growth of these prolific organisms in the soil.”(p.109). “Contrary to popular opinion, drug resistance in bacteria does not demonstrate evolution. It does demonstrate natural selection, but only selection among already existing variations within a kind.”(p.110) Denton, a molecular biologist, stated that the mathematical improbabilities of random mechanisms explaining all of evolution comes very close to a disproof of evolution (p.110). Reason 2. The chance of upward useful mutations is also low, in that at least 1000 harmful mutations occur for every helpful one. Perhaps a helpful change might occur, but it would be downed in the sea of harmful changes before the new surviving population could take hold. Geneticists refer to this problem as genetic load or burden which weights down a species and lowers its quality. Experiments in inbreeding of fruit flies demonstrated mutations were so bad as to almost destroy this select group. Because harmful mutations so outnumber good ones, it’s considered illegal in many states to marry someone too closely related to you. (p.114-5). Parker claims that the Florida panther became endangered by to many bad mutations in a limited group in Florida. Only after importing panthers from the western USA, to lower the genetic burden, did the populations do better (p.119). Reason 3. Mutations point back to creation in kinds with some variation in genes as being more likely (the biblical view). This is because of the huge genetic load and improbability of mutations from a single cell to everything. “Mutations are not genetic script writers; they are merely typographical errors. Typically, a mutation changes only one letter in a genetic sentence averaging 1,500 letters(DNA bases) long”(p.120) The information in a technical book, for example, cannot be reduced to or derived from the properties of the ink and paper used to write it. Similarly, the information in the genetic code cannot be reduced to, nor derived from the properties of the matter, nor from the mistakes of mutations: its message and meaning originated instead in the mind of the maker. (p. 122). Genes of the same kind, like those for straight or curly hair or those for yellow or green seeds, are called alleles. There are over 300 alleles of the hemoglobin gene. By definition, alleles are just variants of a given gene causing variation in a given trait. Mutations produce only alleles. For example one allele of the hemoglobin gene caused by a mutation is the sickle cell gene which occurs when only one DNA base is changed out for several hundred. Genes of the same creation kind can be objectively defined as segments on DNA that occupy corresponding positions (loci) on homologous chromosomes. Homologous chromosomes are pairs that look alike, but come from two different parents, so their genetic content is similar but not identical. These genes pair up and separate in meiotic cell division. They are also turned on and off by the same gene regulations. The word genon is used for genes that affect a different category of trait. These differing genons do not occupy corresponding loci on homologs and do not pair in meiosis. A complete set of DNA specifying a kind is called its genome. The human genone includes at least 30,000 different genons or traits and this is the called the depth of the human gene pool. The E. coli bacteria pool is about 5000 genons deep, while a virus pool may only be a dozen genons deep. The width of the gene pool refers the amount of allelic variation within kind. Among dogs the width of allelic variation is narrow for greyhounds, but wide for mongrels. However the depth of the gene pool is about the same for both dogs (p.123-5). Evolutionists assume that all life started from one or a few chemically evolved life forms with a very small gene pool. They also assume mutations, and selections by struggle and death enlarged the gene pool and over came the genetic load of harmful mutations. Creationists assume each created kind began with a large gene pool, designed to multiply and fill the earth with great variety. “The evolutionary assumption doesn’t work and it’s not consistent with what we presently know of genetics” (p.130). Fig. 22 on pg 135 illustrates this. Occasionally members of one kind may also loose the ability to interbreed with others in the kind as occurred for fruit flies. These subgroups can then be called a different species but they could also be called alleles (p.131-3).
Chap. 3 The Fossil Evidence
A 1980 conference of leading evolutionary scientists was held in Chicago consider the question of whether the mechanisms of macroevolution could be extrapolated to explain macroevolution. The answer that they gave was a clear no, as summarized by Lewin in Science.(p.150) Parker stated the old evolutionary view is similar to assuming you could ride a bicycle from earth to the moon if you just pedaled long enough. “There are just too many logical and scientific limits to such an extrapolation.” (p. 151). Although many scientists recognize that molecules to man evolution is very improbable, some cite fossils as evidence of the long periods of evolution. Fossils help us with 2 types of questions: First what kinds of plants and animals once populated the earth? Second how fast were fossils and the rock layers that contain them formed? The oldest period of history where there are fossils is the Cambrian period. This period show sea life including complex trilobites, and nautiloids and no earlier intermediate or simple like forms. This is a blow to evolutionists because the early simple forms are missing (p154-8). Darwin also noticed this and stated that the fossil evidence was “perhaps the most obvious and serious objection to the theory” (p.159) David Rump a modern noted expert on fossils stated the same thing (p160-2). Fossilized plants are similar to what we find today and complex including algae that can do photosynthesis. Fossilized plants can be classified by the same criteria we use today and argue for a special creation (p.163-5).
Among vertebrate animals the Archaeopteryx has be cited as a missing link between reptiles and birds. Although it has some features in common with a reptile it is still a bird and not an ideal example of a missing link. It was long used as a publicized missing link but is now mostly discredited. National Geographic did an article and display on a dinosaur with feathers which was a complete fake. Fossils of bird parts were cemented together with fossils of dinosaur parts. The Piltdown Man was also shown a hoax with an ape jaw attached to man’s skull In fact there have been so many publicized missing links that have later disproven, that books have been written on them by various authors (P.171). Many of these have been hoaxes and falsifications. The widely publicized Nebraska man was later shown to have been wrongly based on the tooth of a pig. The Neanderthals turned out to be people who suffered from bone diseases. A recent candidate the Australopithecus is now considered grossly apelike and not really related to man at all. A 1926 paper by H. Osborn claimed that Negroes would be classified as a separate species and not fully human.(p.177) He was a leading evolutionist of the time and this promoted Hitler’s racism and the false claims of eugenics and the super Arian race. Australian aborigines were also one treated as subhuman evolutionary links. Parker noted the evolution goes far beyond the limits of science, and is more easily influenced by human bias (p.178).
Referring again to the 1980 conference of leading evolutionists, Adler and Carey stated “Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high School.”(p.186) “In the fossil record the missing links are the rule. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between the species, the more they have been frustrated.” “Gould and Eldridge are simply saying that most kinds of fossilized life forms appear in the fossil sequence abruptly and distinctly as discrete kinds, show relatively minor variation within kind, then often abruptly disappear.” (p 187). Denton states that although the transitional forms are missing, evolutionary thought today provides the priority of the paradigm (i.e., the assumption that evolution is a fact) takes precedence over common sense and the facts (p.190).
The 2nd question was how fast were the fossils formed? Most scientists agree the past fossils were formed rapidly under flood conditions. The old belief that the fossil deposition occurred very slowly has been cast aside, because organisms would decay by bacteria and rot to dust in long periods of time. The debate then is over whether there were many little floods or one big flood forming most of the fossils (p.192). The two interpretations of a common sedimentary fossil column are show in fig. 32 p. 197. The common evolutionary belief is that the ages of fossil depositions were eons apart and caused by many different floods. The creationist belief is that the depositions occurred in about one yr. during the great flood of Noah, with the lowest elevation organisms (sea life) being burred first and the higher elevation life being buried last. There is now a growing school of evolutionary geology with many members called neo-catastrophists who believe a massive flood or floods did occur (p195-7). Parker further compares the 2 views in the Fossil Book and provides considerable documentation for the creationist view. The older uniformitarian school grew out of the theories of geologist Charles Lyell at about the time of Darwin. This slow and uniform theory can explain some erosion and deposition we see, but so can rapid erosion and deposition explain some events. More scientists are recognizing that very slow deposition does not create huge number of fossils, as they decay away first. Some depositions with fossils are in fact spread out over vast areas, even continents. The Morrison Formation with its dinosaur remains covers much of the mountainous west, while the St. Peters Sandstone goes from Canada to Texas. Most scientists agree that there must have been massive floods of a type not seen in the better recorded history of the last 4000 yrs. “Evolutionists believe that the land plants did not appear until 100 million years after the Cambrian trilobites died out. Yet over 60 genera of woody plants spores, pollen and wood itself have been recovered from the lowest trilobite rock (Cambrian) throughout the world. This evidence is so well known that its even in standard college biology textbooks.” Some evolutionists say that despite the contrary evidence they still believe that plants evolved much later. The creationist does not argue despite the contrary evidence; he argues because of the evidence they were present near the same time (p.199). Misplaced fossils are very common and evolutionists have developed terms for them like a stratigraphic leak (it was deposited too low in the column), reworked specimen (it was deposited too high in the column), and paraconformity (a smooth continuous deposition into another misplaced geologic age), a disconfromity (where a layer- age is missing). “In fact the only way to recognize a paraconformity is by a prior commitment to evolutionary theory. There is no physical evidence.”(p. 201). Parker states further, “perhaps the actual physical evidence is correct and it’s the evolutionary time scale-based on faith in evolution- that’s wrong” (p. 201). There are many polystratic fossils. As the name implies they may extend through many rock layers or strata. For example, fossilezed trees have been buried vertically through many ages of sediments. Evolutionists have no explanation for this but creationists do. There were not many ages, only a year (p. 202). “Polystrates are especially common in coal deposits.” And many scientists are considering the rapid flood deposition theory as opposed to the old slow swamp plant deposition theory for coal. Dr. Steve Austin did his doctoral dissertation on coal geology. In this he states that coal was formed from plant debris deposited under mats of vegetation floating in sea water. His model explained many features of coal that the swamp model could not explain. Even more important his theory—is the first ever to predict the location and quality of the coal.”(p 203) a dramatic confirmation of the processes theorized by Dr. Austin was confirmed in small scale by the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens. The volcano sent mud and debris in a wave that sheered off millions of trees. The trees floated out on a large lake and became water logged and sunk down into the recent mud deposits. The whole mass is now reminiscent of early coal deposits and has polysrates (vertical trees in it). Creationists believe that many volcanoes went off during the great flood and sheared off trees and vegetation which floated and were deposited in sediment in a few years not millions of years. As an aside, the following is a quote from Wiepedia.org defining Catastrophism: “Catastrophism is the idea that Earth has been affected in the past by sudden, short-lived, violent events, possibly worldwide in scope. The dominant paradigm of modern geology, in contrast, is uniformitarianism (also sometimes described as gradualism), in which slow incremental changes, such as erosion, create the Earth’s appearance. This view holds that the present is the key to the past, and that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the world. Recently a more inclusive and integrated view of geologic events has developed, changing the scientific consensus to accept some catastrophic events in the geologic past.” Parker pointed out that a number of evolutionists have proposed an asteroid impact as responsible for rapidly killing off the dinosaurs and other giant animals (p.206).
Other facts and theories that support rapid deposition and climate change causing rapid large animal death include the following: Many volcanoes going off during the Noah’s flood would explain the warming of the oceans, the cooling of the high land areas the deposition of massive ice fields, and the rapid killing of animals. Ice during the peak of the ice age covered about 30% of the earth surface.(p 207-9) More details on the Ice Age after the volcanoes and great flood are given in paper and books by Michael Oard (.p 208). There are many living fossils (very old organisms living today) some of which are a problem for evolutionists. Some of these included lampshells, nautilus, certain fish and many plants. Some species do not seem to have evolved much from their fossils dated millions of yrs ago. Dinosaur bones have been found repeatedly with soft fleshy looking tissue with supple bone cells and translucent blood vessels and blood cells, in fossils presumed to be 80 million yrs old. How could fresh tissue and dinosaur DNA last this long without degrading? (p.210-12). Creation scientists have formed a RATE team investigating radioisotopes and the age of the earth. They have evidence that the earth is thousands of years old and not billions of years (p.212-3). There is evidence the Grand Canyon with its fossil record could have been formed recently by catastrophic flood and uplift processes. There is an approved USGS paper Lake Missoula by Harlan Bretz and a paper and video by Steve Austin on the Grand Canyon. Austin has also done papers on the rapid effects of Mt. St. Helen’s valley formation and deposition (p.216-230).
Summary
Dr. Parker has a PhD. Degree in Biology with a minor in Paleontology and gives his reasons for changing from an evolutionist to a creationist in an orderly logical fashion. He has many years of teaching and research experience in these disciplines. He discusses the convincing points from the fields of molecular biology, biology and fossils (paleontology) that point to macroevolution as not being true. His style is technical and factual and he gives references to support his assertions. Parker uses the term Microevolution as something both creationists and evolutions believe in. The loose definition of evolution being change through time is not very useful and misleading. Macroevolution is the term used for evolution from a few simple species to complex species and man. I agree with the main arguments in the book and find the book useful for students of biology and those studying the evolution-creation debate.