Evolution Herald Style

Where Lorne Gunter Proposes The “Big Bang Theory of Life”

The week of August 29, 1999 was a particularly unfortunate one for our local newspaper, the Calgary Herald. In one day, Thursday September 02, the Herald managed to distribute not one, but two entirely misleading articles – one in the form of an opinion column by Lorne Gunter on evolution and the second, a review by Shelley Holmes of the successes of therapeutic touch. There is not room to go into both, so let’s start at the beginning, with evolution and deal with therapeutic touch in the columns to follow.

The Latest on Evolution — From Those That Know Precious Little About It.

It seems the media is simply unable to refrain from waxing elegant (and otherwise) on the recent decision in Kansas by a local school board to remove the teaching of evolution from the curriculum. The decision means teachers will no longer be required to teach evolution nor will the subject form part of the year-end examinations. 

From the local media in Kansas (that proclaimed that Darwinian evolution and creation science had equal scientific merit) to the New York Times, journalists and writers have jumped into the fray to help the masses understand the boundaries separating science and faith

In this regard, witness the latest column from Lorne Gunter. The column, entitled ‘Missing link is still missing’, expresses concern about the level of debate on both sides of the issue. As the subtitle to the column states; “Creationists and evolutionists are profoundly anti-intellectual in current round of debate…”. But don’t worry; it turns out the profoundly intellectual Lorne Gunter is here to save us. Unfortunately, he manages to get his basic facts wrong — at least the scientific ones — in the process. 

Reviewing these facts or assertions is useful because together, they pretty well sum up the prevailing arguments of creationists against evolution. Let’s deal with each in turn.

“..there are holes in the theory of evolution…”. 

No clarification is made by Mr. Gunter or other creationists as to what is meant by ‘holes’, although we can be reasonable sure they don’t mean black ones. Best guess is that he is referring to the truism that characterizes all scientific theories – their incompleteness. Science is after all, a human practice. Until we know everything and become Gods ourselves in the process (and I wouldn’t hold your breath on that one) all our scientific theories will be incomplete — or complete with holes, depending upon your point of view. This is no argument against evolution any more than it is an argument against any part of science or mathematics. 

The theory of gravity is full of holes too (and some are indeed black), but if you come across one (a hole that is) best not to jump in, as you will fall down just the same. Gravity doesn’t need Einstien’s theory of gravity to work, it works regardless. The same is true for evolution. It turns out that life didn’t wait around for humanity to develop the theory of evolution, life just went ahead and evolved anyway. 

Darwin’s theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution the same way Einstiens’s theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity (things falling down). When Newton’s theory was replaced with Einstein’s, things continued to fall the way they always had. No doubt as time goes on, Darwin’s theory will be improved or replaced, but it will only be because a new theory (or modification) will do a better job of explaining precisely how evolution took place, not whether or not it did.

“While individual species seem clearly to have evolved, there is no evidence of one species (say apes) evolving into a higher species (say man).” 

What??? Wake up — the 20th century is almost over and you nearly missed it. In fact, the evidence in support of evolution and evolutionary theory is simply overwhelming. To quote Daniel Dennett, Distinguished Arts and Sciences professor and Director of the Centre for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University; “The evidence for evolution pours in, not only from geology, paleontology, biogeography, and anatomy, but of course from molecular biology and every other branch of the life sciences. To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant – inexcusably ignorant in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write.” Hey, there’s a good idea, Perhaps creationists, including Mr. Gunter should write less and read more. 

“The missing link is still missing, and not just for primates, but for all other species too.” 

Really? Well it’s difficult to know, as the term ‘link’ is a dated concept not used in evolutionary contexts. As the mountains of evidence for evolution poured in, we learned that evolution did not proceed down some unbroken ‘linked’ chain to the present. Several species of hominid creatures lived and indeed may have lived alongside one another. For better or worse, it is we that have survived. As Charles Flowers writes for the popular series ‘A Science Odyssey’; “Differences between other apes and the human ape are several and may have occurred at different times, making nonsense of the idea of a single link”. And earlier in the text; “The concept (of a link) is now known to be flawed, though the term still lives in some popular writing”. There you go Mr. Gunter, you may not know what you’re writing about, but at least your writing is popular.

“In addition, the gaps (and they are substantial) in the fossil record, call into question (though do not completely refute) the Big Bang theory of the origins of life…”. 

The Big Bang theory of the origins of life!??? When did they come up with that one? I assume Mr. Gunter means the so called ‘Big Bang’ theory of the creation of our universe – the theory originally designed to explain the expansion of the universe first observed by Edwin Hubble back in the 1920’s. The big bang theory of life would be completely different, but I hesitate going into it because I cannot do so without slipping into some crude sexual imagery. Lets just say the Big Bang (either version) and evolution are different theories explaining different things.

As for gaps in the fossil record, give the scientists a break. They’ve only been at this for the past hundred plus years or so, while pieces of the puzzle they are trying to solve have been literally buried for as long as a billion years – perhaps longer. There is no chance science will find all the pieces. Nor is there any need to. Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected. What fossils have been found support one, and only one, inescapable conclusion — life and we, as living creatures, are the result of evolution.

The debate about evolution is over, but the argument continues.

Mr. Gunter begins his column calling for an improvement in the quality of debate between ‘evolutionists’ and ‘creationists’ and ends it with a call for having both views taught in the classroom. This has become the standard line of the creationists’ argument. The argument rests upon the assumption that there is in fact, a debate. But there is no serious debate about the fact of evolution, simply because the evidence is so overwhelming, although there is plenty scholarly debate on evolution and evolutionary theory, as there should be. 

Indeed, there is no more debate about the fact of evolution than there is on whether the earth is flat or round. That doesn’t stop people from arguing that evolution is wrong or that the world is flat. It was only six years ago that the supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, issued a fatwa (edict) declaring the world to be flat and anyone believing otherwise to be punished as an atheist. Was the Sheik contributing to meaningful debate, or simply arguing for an obscure point of view that fails to accept the reality of our world?

Simply wanting the world to be flat or evolution to be wrong doesn’t make it so, nor does it create debate. We may not like the conclusions of science, but ultimately we have to live with them. Sooner or later we must accept the fact of evolution. That acceptance will be some time in coming. The debate is over, but the argument continues.