Of particular concern to us are three anti-evolution creationist "myths" that have all been raised recently in The Tribune. Although a newspaper may not be the proper place for detailed scientific discussion, some clarification is appropriate as belief in these assertions may affect legislation and public policy.
l The first claim is that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record. This is patently untrue; there are many examples, but the creationists repeat the statement as if the retelling will change reality.
We offer just a few examples: Mammals, it is clear, evolved on land. But one branch, the whales, subsequently evolved to a marine existence. Evolution predicted, and subsequent research has found, ancestral (fossil) whales progressively adapted to the ocean. Similarly, hominids (apparent ancestors of humans) now comprise a sequence of some 20 recognized species.
Indeed, Dr. Kurt Wise, a creationist with sufficient background to speak knowledgeably on the matter, has repeatedly insisted that his fellow creationists must stop their dissembling on the matter of transitional fossils, and specifically points to whale and hominid fossils as being transitional both in form and in time, and with which creationists must honestly come to grips.
Further examples of transitional fossils can be found in any paleontology text, including horses, elephants, birds, etc., not to mention plants and invertebrates. Given the special set of circumstances required for the preservation of fossils, the record of transitional forms is quite striking. This issue should be laid to rest.
l The second myth is that methods of dating rocks and minerals are unreliable, or produce different ages for the same rock. The latter, in fact, is true at times. A classic case is the granite of Little Cottonwood Canyon.
We know of four techniques that have been applied to two different minerals in the rock (it is sometimes possible to apply more than one technique to a single mineral). Each technique records the time at which the rock cooled below a critical temperature. The oldest age, 30.5 million years, records the time elapsed since the granite solidified from a molten state at a temperature of about 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit.
The other ages of 10 million, 5 million and 3 million years record the time at which the rock cooled through 400 degrees, 200 degrees, and 150 degrees due to uplift along the Wasatch Fault. In other words, it would have been entirely unreasonable for all four methods to yield the same age. The fact is that when properly applied and understood, modern techniques for dating rocks are very reliable.
l The third, and in some ways most distressing, myth is the assertion that the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution. This rests on the notion that "disorder" is increasing, whereas evolution postulates increasing order in life over time.
Thermodynamics is a difficult topic to explain in a few sentences. Open-system, not closed-system, thermodynamics must be considered since the Earth constantly derives energy from the sun. And in open systems, energy transfer can and does drive greater complexity: For example, the creation of snowflakes. There, standard physical and chemical laws inexorably create myriad symmetrical forms and complex patterns.
Similarly, physical and chemical laws produce mutations, most bad but some good, which produce new biochemical pathways in living organisms, and which, when acted upon by natural selection and other forces, have evidently produced the many forms of life. Evolution does not violate thermodynamics; it is the product of thermodynamics.
For the interested reader, scientifically sound information on these and other issues raised by creationists can be found at the National Center for Science Education Web site at http://www.ncseweb.org..
To the non-believer, creationist objections are likely to sound inherently absurd. However, as scientists who hold deep and profound personal beliefs in God, we offer a few final observations.
Since there is overwhelming evidence for the evolution of life and the antiquity of Earth, we find it very unlikely that God would set about to deceive us. Although each believer may seek to understand the purpose of creation, we believe it is unwise for any individual to claim to know the mind of God concerning the mechanics of creation.
We agree with Apostle James Talmage of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who, commenting wisely on the interface between science and religion, said, "We do not show reverence for the scriptures when we misapply them through faulty interpretation."
Rather, we seek spiritual truth through our personal devotions and secular truth through the scientific method. We urge the Utah Legislature to do the same.
---
Stephen Nelson and Bart Kowallis teach in the Department of Geology at Brigham Young University.
