Evolution versus Creation I

The comments I have made on the books by Dr. Richard Dawkins , which deal largely

with the supposed workings of biological evolution, are based on notes I made when reading the

books a few years ago. I have not reread the books, but have consulted them to make sure as far

as possible that I have not misquoted or misunderstood what Dr. Dawkins was saying. The

papers are placed in the order in which my comments were typed as follows:-

The Blind Watchmaker

The Selfish Gene

River out of Eden

Climbing Mount Improbable

There is less comment on the last two books, at least partly because I wanted to avoid as far as

possible constantly repeating the same criticisms. Much of the factual information in the books I

found fascinating and amazing. I would also say that I appreciate Dr. Dawkins ’ ability to make

his subject interesting. His own enthusiasm for it comes through in his writing. However, when it

comes to his evolutionary speculations I beg to differ strongly from him. He makes little or no

effort to prove that biological evolution on the grand scale has in fact taken place. He just

assumes it has and then proceeds to think of ways in which a species could have arrived at its

present state by genetic mistakes selected to survive because they made the species superior to

what it was before the mutations. In other words the species was selected to survive by the

unthinking forces of nature, which practically means population pressure.

To start with, genetic mistakes (mutations) are not going to result in improvements to a

species to any significant extent if at all. DNA which is like, say, a book in the National Library,

is not going to be improved by mistakes any more than the books in the library are improved by

printer’s errors. In fact the code in the DNA is no more likely to have come into existence by

chance (no known reason) than the printing in the library books. Yet it appears that we are being

asked by Dr. Dawkins to accept that it did. The library books were produced by intelligent beings

and the information in the genome points to the same thing - an intelligent source.

Dr. Dawkins tacitly admits that evolution by natural selection, or to use other

terminology, the survival of the fittest, is an improbable way for species to have come into

existence, else why does he call one of his books Climbing Mount Improbable ? (See also The

Blind Watchmaker, chapter 1 which he titles “Explaining the very improbable”)

Dr. Dawkins talks of evolutionarily stable strategies (see page 173 of The Selfish Gene and

my comments on page 5 of the relevant section). This may sound well, but if something is

evolving (changing) it is not stable, and if it is stable (not changing) it is not evolving.

If Dr.Dawkins means species have become stable, we are effectively saying that evolution has

come to a full stop ! Further there is no real strategy in Dr. Dawkins scheme of things because

there is no strategist. In fact he has a creation without a creator, inventions without an inventor,

architecture without an architect, design without a designer, policy without a policy maker,

writing without a writer and information without an intelligent source. He sees economy in the

way that the creation is run (e.g. A whole genetic code based on an alphabet of only four letters

!), but postulates the wasteful trial and error method of evolution as the way all life came into

existence. He does not begin to explain the nature of the ultimate power source in the universe.

One might say he has power without a generator. The question is where did the Sun originally

obtain its power ?

The world is chockfull of variety. How did it come to be ? An improved species driving

out the old would not increase variety. The world is a vast ecosystem and within that ecosystem

are smaller ecosystems, like those in Madagascar and Australia. The point of these ecosystems is

that they enable creatures that are compatible to exist together without one species wiping out

others, as happens when the system is infiltrated by the letting loose of alien species in the countryside.

Within each ecosystem there is great variety which cannot have come about by geographical isolation

because there is none, or not a significant amount. Land animals may in some cases become isolated,

but where birds are concerned isolation is less likely and probably less likely still in the case of sea creatures,

not to mention plant life. Any differences resulting from geographical isolation will almost certainly be

minimal and result from the variety in the original species becoming split between the isolated creatures.

Dr. Dawkins makes the preservation and spreading of genes the reason for the existence

of replicating bodies. One wonders why the cells in which the genes are do not just replicate

themselves without going through the performance of making large bodies to do the replicating.

There must be a simpler way of replicating genes. The reality is that the object in replicating

genetic information is to make organisms that will fill the earth and ultimately make it a suitable

habitat for mankind. Dr. Dawkins I think knows this, but for reasons best known to himself,

rejects such a rational explanation for the existence of the universe and all that is in it,

maintaining that there is no real reason why it should exist - it just does.

Sometimes (not Dr. Dawkins) creatures like lungfishes are pointed to as being creatures

intermediate between gill breathers and lung breathers, that is, they somehow demonstrate

evolution. However, this is not really so, because such creatures still exist today and have not

been weeded out by natural selection. Further they are not really intermediate forms in the sense

of being partly one thing and partly something else. They are in reality both types (gill breathers

and lung breathers) in one creature ! Again, the sea squirts are sometimes pointed to as creatures

in some way intermediate between vertebrates and invertebrates. However, again they are not so,

because they are extant today and have not been eliminated by natural selection. Further, they

have a notochord (something approaching a backbone) as juveniles, but lose it when adult. They

are thus in different stages of their life, both types. Neither can they really be said to recapitulate

the evolution of invertebrates in to vertebrates, for they are in their juvenile stage vertebrates and

later invertebrates; the reverse order to that put forward by the evolutionists who think (based on

the fossil record) that vertebrates evolved from invertebrates.

The most likely source of evidence for evolution are the insects and other small creatures

preserved in amber. There is a termite genus preserved in Mexican and Dominican amber, which

is now only extant in Australia. Had the fossil genus not been found in the localities it has it

would no doubt have been assumed that the genus evolved in Australia. However it is clear that it

did not. It is just that it continued to exist in Australia after having died out elsewhere. This

termite genus is not the only example of this sort of thing (see Amber - The Natural Time

Capsule by Andrew Ross of the Natural History Museum, page 34). The evidence of amber is

that insects and other small creatures have not significantly changed in geological time. Some

have apparently died out, though one would have to allow that they may sometime in the future,

at least in some cases, be found to be still extant. On the other hand there are extant types not

found preserved in amber. This maybe because they did not live in parts of the earth where the

resin that produced amber was found, or they managed to avoid being trapped. However, when

there are more amber finds, they may in some cases yet be found to have been preserved in this

way.

It is often assumed that the creatures found in Madagascar are different from those on the

mainland of Africa because they evolved there. Again, this is not so because fossils of lemurs

have been found in Europe, America and Asia and have changed little, so it is said, in 50,000,000

years ! There are in fact lemurs in southern and central Africa, in southern Asia and the East

Indies. Perhaps it is for these reasons and those in the preceding paragraph that Dr. Dawkins

writes regarding the effects of geographical isolation: “The details are controversial” (River out of

Eden, page 6).

On page 310 of The Blind Watchmaker the possibility of fire-breathing mutants is

considered (see also my comments on page 15 of the relevant section). As Dr. Dawkins knows

the Bombardier Beetle squirts a lethal mixture of hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide into the

face of its enemy (see page 86 of “The Blind Watchmaker”). There does not appear to be much

difference between this procedure and what a fire breathing dragon might do.

Generally speaking when we ask a Why question we are asking the reason for something

that has happened. If we say: “Why has it rained” the answer may be that it is because the clouds

were full of water (a Biblical statement - see Ecclesiastes 11:3). That is the immediate cause.

However, we could have said that it is because rain is necessary to enable plants to grow and

animals to survive. That is the underlying reason. It points to the purpose of rain, which points to

the intelligence that organised the cosmos. Without rain there would be no living things on the

earth. The earth would be a desert. Dew as we know it would have minimal effect. In Egypt the

country is sustained by irrigation taking water from the Nile. However, that water originally fell as

rain in the highlands of Ethiopia or elsewhere up the Nile valley. However, when we speak of

God we cannot expect an answer to the question: “Why does He exist” for he never came into

existence, but always was. There is no happening for which we can expect a cause or reason (see

page 97 of River out of Eden and my comments on page 7 of the relevant section).

With reference to predation on page 105 of River out of Eden I comment on the feelings

of animals (see my comments on page 8 of the relevant section). While we cannot know the

feelings of an animal, we can get some idea of its intelligence as compared with that of a human

being and this is very likely a fair guide to the level of its feelings when compared with ours.

I have in some places quoted the Bible, as Dr. Dawkins himself does. I normally use the

JNDarby translation. Where I have quoted Scripture I have in fact used it and on checking

I have found no significant translation differences compared with the AV.

Some may have little or no confidence in what I say because I have no qualifications in

academic qualification I understand was in divinity ! Further, Richard Leakey had no formal

education let alone scientific credentials (Origins Reconsidered, page 18). Not that I reject what

he says because of this. In any case a university qualification only shows that one has made a

serious effort to study a subject and been pronounced proficient by some academics. (I did

incidentally get a credit in biology in the old Oxford School Certificate exam) I would say that I

do not expect anyone to accept what I say because I say it, but because what I say can be

demonstrated to be true in some way or makes logical sense.

June 2001