biblestudying.net

Printer Friendly Version

In our segment entitled, “Giving the Evidence a Chance to Speak,” we stated that we believe that clarity on the question of origins, evolution, and creation is simply a matter of two things.

A.) First, identifying precisely what each theory (creation and evolution) entails in its current, most prominent form.

B.) And second, to let the evidence speak with the intention of identifying to what extent the evidence does or does not point for or against one of those two theories.

The purpose of this section is to accomplish the first of these items, identifying precisely what each theory entails in its current, most prominent form.

Theories are explanations of observed evidence. Theories are defined by the mechanisms they describe. Mechanisms are the items that bring the evidence about. The debate over origins is essential a debate over mechanisms. In fact, the entire argument can be reduced to a debate over the necessity of a mechanism known as “teleology” or “foresight.”

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines teleology as the concept that the characteristics of natural phenomena indicate they are shaped by purpose.

“Teleology – Etymology: New Latin teleologia, from Greek tele-, telos end, purpose + -logia –logy. 1a: the study of evidences of design in nature b: a doctrine (as in vitalism) that ends are immanent in nature c: a doctrine explaining phenomena by final causes 2: the fact or character attributed to nature or natural processes of being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose 3: the use of design or purpose as an explanation of natural phenomena.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

In his article, “The Beginnings of Life on Earth” in the September-October 1995 issue of American Scientist, Christian de Duve likewise identifies “teleology” and “foresight” as the critical issue separating evolutionary theory from creationist conceptions of the world.

“An important rule in this exercise is to reconstruct the earliest events in life's history without assuming they proceeded with the benefit of foresight. Every step must be accounted for in terms of antecedent and concomitant events. Each must stand on its own and cannot be viewed as a preparation for things to come. Any hint of teleology must be avoided.” – The Beginnings of Life on Earth, Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995

Later on in the same article, de Duve goes on to assert that although evolutionary scenarios involving an RNA-only stage toward the origin of life from non-living matter are “a matter of dogma,” in reality, the prospect of life arising from non-living matter without foresight has so far utterly failed.

"The Beginnings of Life on Earth, The RNA World – Today it is almost a matter of dogma that the evolution of life did include a phase where RNA was the predominant biological macromolecule. Origin and Evolution of the RNA World – On the other hand, it is also surprising since these must have been sturdy reactions to sustain the RNA world for a long time. Contrary to what is sometimes intimated, the idea of a few RNA molecules coming together by some chance combination of circumstances and henceforth being reproduced and amplified by replication simply is not tenable. There could be no replication without a robust chemical underpinning continuing to provide the necessary materials and energy. The development of RNA replication must have been the second stage in the evolution of the RNA world. The problem is not as simple as might appear at first glance. Attempts at engineering--with considerably more foresight and technical support than the prebiotic world could have enjoyed--an RNA molecule capable of catalyzing RNA replication have failed so far." – The Beginnings of Life on Earth, Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995

In the quote above, de Duve also correctly identifies the critical criterion for determining whether or not foresight and purpose are required in order for a particular scenario to occur. Specifically, just before referring to the “foresight” involved in evolutionary experiments to simulate the origin of life, de Duve specifies that “chance combinations of circumstances” can either be classified as tenable or untenable for any particular theoretical scenario. And once again, when describing the interdependent relationship of DNA and proteins, for example, de Duve comments again on the critical nexus of probability, coinciding origination of functionally interdependent elements, and foresight.

“Scientists considering the origins of biological molecules confronted a profound difficulty. In the modern cell, each of these molecules is dependent on the other two for either its manufacture or its function. DNA, for example, is merely a blueprint, and cannot perform a single catalytic function, nor can it replicate on its own. Proteins, on the other hand, perform most of the catalytic functions, but cannot be manufactured without the specifications encoded in DNA. One possible scenario for life's origins would have to include the possibility that two kinds of molecules evolved together, one informational and one catalytic. But this scenario is extremely complicated and highly unlikely.” – The Beginnings of Life on Earth, Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995

De Duve comments on the critical dynamic between probability, coinciding origination of functionally interdependent elements, and foresight when describing the evolutionary theory concerning the origin of the DNA base pairs.

“It seems very unlikely that protometabolism produced just the four bases found in RNA, A, U, G and C, ready by some remarkable coincidence to engage in pairing and allow replication. Chemistry does not have this kind of foresight.” – The Beginnings of Life on Earth, Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995

As these quotes illustrate, statistical probability is the critical factor for determining whether or not a scenario could arise with or without teleological foresight. If the statistical probability that the essential elements of a particular scenario will coincide is too low to realistically be expected to occur, then the coinciding of those elements is deemed to require foresight, or in other words, conscious, deliberate arrangement. On the other hand, if the essential elements of a particular scenario are statistically calculated to have realistic probability of coinciding occurrence, then deliberate arrangement is not required.

Throughout the rest of this article series we will see this issue of “probability” arise again and again when it comes to the precise balance or intricate interdependence of numerous factors necessary in order for particular theoretical scenarios to occur. Concerning evolutionary explanations of the formation of the large-scale structure of the universe, we will see pro-evolution commentaries analyzing not only whether or not various theoretical explanations work at all but also whether or not those that do work are “too ideally balanced” to fit with the strict, non-teleological assumptions of evolutionary theory. Concerning the origin of life, we will again see pro-evolution commentators assessing whether or not particular scenarios defy probability requirements for a non-teleological origin of a living cell, just as in the American Scientist article cited above. And concerning the origin of species, we will see pro-evolution commentaries assessing the probability behind the evolutionary mechanism of beneficial mutations. And in our closing table of evidences, we will see the issue of probability vs. teleology in the Anthropic Principle, which addresses the combined probability of all the factors necessary for life to exist in the universe.

At every step in the process, concerning each aspect of the evidence, the question of foresight emerges. That is the essential difference in the theories. That is the essential difference in their explanatory mechanisms. Evolution theory assesses that all of the world around us, all of the observable evidence, conforms to what can be explained in terms of processes that occur without foresight, without preparation and anticipation of later steps, without interdependent factors whose required coincidence defy probability. In direct contrast, creation theory assesses that all of the world around us, all of the observable evidence, involves preparation and anticipation of function, interdependent factors whose required coincidence defies probability, and consequently requires foresight and purpose. The fact is that the presence or absence of foresight as a mechanism for the characteristics of the observable evidence is the defining component of each theory concerning every aspect of the observable universe.

And on this note, it is important to state that creationism is a theory that is based upon and that points to positive evidence. By positive evidence we mean that creationism is not merely a “God of the gaps theory.” The phrase “God of the gaps” refers to the criticism that there is no evidence that inherently points to God’s existence but instead, God is asserted only when there is minor gap, shortcoming, or lack of explanation in current evolutionary theory. Since “God” is inserted to fill in the “gaps” where evidence or explanations are missing, the absence of evidence or explanations acts as sort of a negative evidence, a “minus sign” in the evolution column, which indicates that God is necessary as a “plug” to fill in what’s missing.

But creationism is not merely the result of asserting “God” as the solution to holes in evolutionary theory. Creationism actually points to positive evidence. Positive evidence means that, far from God being necessitated simply because something is “missing,” instead God is necessitated expressly because of what is present. In other words, creationism is not based upon asserting God’s involvement whenever we don’t know what the evidence indicates or how the evidence works. Instead, creationism is based upon looking at actual particular traits of the evidence and observing that those particular traits actually indicate foresight, design, and teleology. There is positive evidence that points to foresight and teleology, not just “missing pieces” in the evolutionary theory. One example of the positive evidence that creationists point to for foresight and teleology are the various chicken-and-egg scenarios that cannot be solved without insurmountable improbabilities. Creationism asserts that extremely improbable coincidences that bring about necessary functions are positive proof of purposeful orchestration, or teleology. While evolutionists might argue about whether foresight or automatic, routine processes are required to solve these and other obstacles, it is simply inaccurate to argue that creationism doesn’t point to positive evidence or that the only evidence that creationism has are the shortcomings of evolutionary theory.

This brings us to the definitional descriptions of the two theories. Before we define each theory, it is important to note that in the origins debate, there are essentially 5 major categories of evidence that prompt explanation.

1) The origin of the universe in terms of space, time, matter, and energy
2) The variety and distribution of the astronomical objects in the universe
3) The origin of the geological features of the earth
4) The origin of life
5) The variety and distribution of organisms on earth

Both evolutionist and creationist theories are explanations of these items. As such each theory is defined by how it explains these points, particularly in relation to the absence or presence of teleology as a mechanism. After we define each theory in terms of these points, there will be specific portions that require more detailed discussion, which will be covered in expanded commentaries after each theory’s summary.

Creation Theory

Describing the creation theory and its explanatory mechanisms with regard to the 5 categories of evidence listed in the preceding introduction results in the following summary of the theory.

1) The origin of the universe in terms of space, time, matter, and energy are not explainable by means of blind, automatic processes. Instead, a supernatural entity that exists outside the space-time, matter-energy universe is required to cause the beginning of the space-time, matter-energy universe. And that supernatural entity that exists outside of time must be an intelligence not just an automatic, routine force in order to explain the finite emergence of the universe at a particular point in time. The combination of the historical record, astronomical features, the rates of natural processes, geologic features, and the biological features of the universe (described below) all lead to the conclusion that the universe began about 6,000-10,000 years ago.

2) Likewise, the formation and distribution of the large-scale structures of the universe such as superclusters, clusters, and galaxies, as well as the formation of stars, planets, and smaller astronomical objects require balance that is too ideal and exhibit traits and behaviors contrary to blind, automatic, routine processes and instead requires foresight.

3) Specific geological features as well as widely distributed geological features negate the possibility of formation by slow, normal processes over multiple thousands or millions of years. Instead, certain geologic features require both rapid and recent formation under ten thousand years. Furthermore, independent historical records all over the earth recount the occurrence of a massive, worldwide flood. Consequently, both the specific traits of the geologic evidence and the historical record indicate that the origin of the geologic features of the earth occurred rapidly in a matter of months as a result of a catastrophic, worldwide flood, with lingering climatological effects taking perhaps a few hundred years to stabilize.

4) The origin of life inherently involves more than one of what are known as “chicken-and-egg dilemmas” in which multiple required components all have to arrive at the same time in order to function and bring about life. This irreducible interdependent functionality defies the probability limits for automatic, routine processes and instead requires foresight.

5) The origin of species by automatic, routine processes would require beneficial mutations that occur at a rate and in a functional, chronological order, both of which defy the probability limits for automatic, routine processes and instead require foresight. The many varieties of structures and organs among the varieties of organisms also exhibit irreducible, functional interdependencies requiring coinciding originations that defy the probability limits for automatic, routine process and instead requires foresight. Furthermore, both the geologic evidence and the universal testimony from direct observation and experimentation reveal that each kind of organism always and only reproduces its own kind, never a new or different kind of organism. Consequently, all of the varieties of organisms on earth today exist in unique, static lineages called “kinds” and require foresight for their origination. Furthermore, given the absence of automatic, routine mechanisms for the production of new, beneficial genetic material and the fact that all the observable evidence including the fossil record depicts static reproductive lineages that do not change into new organisms, the variety present among the kinds of organisms must have been built-in to their original genetic make-up to allow for the resilience to environmental changes necessary for the survival of each kind, which in turn again requires foresight.

Expanded Commentary: Creation Theory

The details of each of the five points of the creation theory will be addressed in later segments, including the “Expanded Commentary” section for the evolution theory and the table of evidences section at the end of the article series. However, one aspect of creation theory, as described above, needs to be expounded before the table of evidences and does not fall under the items covered during the expanded commentary on evolutionary theory. That critical aspect of creation theory is the concept of “kinds.” Along with radioactive dating, which will be covered in the expanded commentary on evolutionary theory, the issues surrounding “kinds” are probably the most misunderstood and the most important aspects of the entire origins debate.

To be precise, there are 6 issues surrounding the concept of “kinds.”

1) Taxonomy and Vocabulary
2) The Actual Observations and Evidence
3) The Gene Pool
4) Defining the Boundaries of Kinds and Species
5) Actual Differences between the 2 Theories
6) Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution

Taxonomy and Vocabulary

The first issue that needs to be discussed is on the level of vocabulary. The importance of this issue can be illustrated in the following way.

Suppose that we had 2 engineers working together to build a better jet engine. One engineer was Russian and the other English. Although they come from different countries, speak different languages, and have different ideas on how to build the best jet engine, the basic concept of a jet engine is probably going to be universal. In other words, they are probably going to agree on a certain portion of the engine design. However, before they can determine who has the better suggestions in the areas where they differ, they will first have to line up the different words that each language has for the various components of the engine. Only once they each understand how the terminology of the other language corresponds to the terminology of their own language, will they have a basis for understanding, let alone resolving, their differences.

A similar situation exists concerning the issue of “kinds,” “species,” and the origins debate. Because both theories are explanations of the same observed evidence, some basic concepts should be present in both theories as a reflection of the common observations that underlie both theories. But before an analysis of the better theory can be performed, it is first necessary to understand how the terminologies of both theories correspond to the basic observations and therefore to each other as well. In the origins debate, this issue is fundamentally related to the terminologies of different systems of taxonomy.

Taxonomy is the science of classifying organisms into different groups. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines “taxonomy” as follows.

“Taxonomy – 1: the study of the general principles of scientific classification: systematics 2: classification; especially: orderly classification of plants and animals according to their presumed natural relationships.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

The modern classification system is a hierarchical arrangement. Larger categories are comprised of small subcategories in a series of levels. The largest category is the kingdom. The smallest subcategory is the species. And there are 5 other levels between those two extremes.

“Classification, Scientific, Groups in classification. Seven chief groups make up a system in scientific classification. The groups are: (1) kingdom, (2) phylum or division, (3) class, (4) order, (5) family, (6) genus, and (7) species. The kingdom is the largest group. The species is the smallest.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Theodore J. Crovello, Ph.D., Professor of Biology and Dean, Graduate Studies and Research, California State University, Los Angeles.

There are 2 important facts that need to be understood about classification systems, including the modern classification system.

First, these designations are inventions of convenience. The major kingdoms can be placed into super-kingdoms or domains, such as Prokaryota and Eukaryota. And even the smallest subcategory of species can be further divided into subspecies or breeds. In addition, these terms are applied along a sliding scale. For example, there is simply no objective standard that guarantees that what is deemed to be a “family” level in the plant kingdom is equivalent to the “family” level in the animal kingdom. The same is true for the other kingdoms and the other subcategories as well. This system is simply to establish a conceptual ladder in which we can arrange organisms into an order that is easy to reference. Furthermore, as indicated by the quote below, the subjective nature of this process combined with the somewhat ad hoc nature of the subcategories themselves continues to result in debate and difficulties in settling certain areas of classification. As such, there is often more than one alternative classification scheme for such difficult areas.

“Taxonomy, Current systems of classification, A classification of living organisms – The use of “division” by botanists and “phylum” by zoologists for equivalent categories leads to a rather awkward situation in the Protista, a group of interest to both botanists and zoologists. As used below, the terms follow prevailing usage: phylum for the primarily animal-like protozoa and division for other protistan groups that are more plantlike and of interest primarily to botanists. The discussion above shows the difficulty involved in classification; for example, one traditional classification of the Aschelminthes, presented below and in the article aschelminth, divides the phylum Aschelminthes into five classes: Rotifera, Gastrotricha, Kinorhyncha, Nematoda, and Nematomorpha. An alternative classification elevates these classes to phyla, and still another classification establishes different relationships between the groups: phylum Gastrotricha, phylum Rotifera, phylum Nematoda (containing classes Adenophorea, Secernentea, and Nematomorpha), and phylum Introverta (containing classes Kinorhyncha, Loricifera, Priapulida, and Acanthocephala). The true relationships between these pseudocoelomates remain to be established.”

Consequently, as we can see even with careful attention to detail, the very nature of categorizing organisms is subjectively and artificially derived for convenience. That is not to say that the commonalities between any 2 organisms aren’t objectively real. Certainly, 2 different land-dwelling animals undeniably share the trait of being land-dwellers. However, what terms we use for different “levels” of similarity, how many “levels” we construct, and on which exact “level” we place a particular similarity are subjective and artificial. Even if starting with the same number of broad categories, a variety of different systems using different names and different numbers of levels would be possible. All would be equally valid. There is no one right way to name and enumerate levels of classification.

Second, in addition to the convenient and subjective nature of classification categories, the modern classification system is a refinement of systems developed in the 18th century.

“Taxonomy – Modern taxonomic classification, based on the natural concepts and system of the Swedish botanist Carolus Linnaeus, has progressed steadily since the 18th century, modified by advances in knowledge of morphology, evolution, and genetics.” – "Taxonomy," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The modern five-kingdom classification system was established during the 1950-60’s with the recognition of fungi as a fifth kingdom.

“Classification, Scientific, Groups in classification – Until the 1960's, most biologists formally recognized only two major kingdoms-Animalia, the animal kingdom, and Plantae, the plant kingdom. But as more information about the microscopic structure and biochemistry of organisms became known, scientists realized that a two-kingdom classification system was not exact enough. Today, most biologists use a system that recognizes five kingdoms of organisms. These are Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, and Prokaryotae.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Theodore J. Crovello, Ph.D., Professor of Biology and Dean, Graduate Studies and Research, California State University, Los Angeles.

“Classification, II CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS THROUGH HISTORY – In the 1950s, a fifth kingdom, Kingdom Fungi, was established, based on fungi's unique method of obtaining food.” – "Classification," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Consequently, since modern classifications originate in the 18th century and did not reach their current form until the 1950-60’s, it is quite clear that any ancient text, including the Bible, is not going to be employing the same category names, the same number of levels, or even the same arrangement criteria that we used today. That doesn’t make those ancient descriptions wrong. It simply makes them different from those developed in modern times.

These 2 facts bring to light a dilemma. There are multiple ways to name and arrange levels of classification. And the Biblical language is not going to correspond to the language of modern classification systems that were not derived until millennia after the text of the Bible was written. Since the Bible and modern biology use different classification terminology, in order to efficiently compare the two theories, we need to understand how the terms in each relate to the terms in the other. Specifically, as pointed out earlier, the creation model employs the concept of “kinds” found in the text of ancient scripture. In contrast, as indicated by Darwin’s watershed book, “The Origin of Species,” evolutionary theory focuses on the concept of “species.” Both species and kinds are categories of organisms, but in order to properly define each theory, we have to understand how these 2 categories relate and differ from one another.

In a debate with evolutionary biologist and geneticist, Dr. William Moore of Wayne State University, creationist Dr. Kent Hovind commented that if it was necessary to describe “kinds” in terms of our modern classification systems, it was probably at least loosely closer to the level that we call a “family.” Although it will be necessary to define kinds further, this basic starting point allows us to understand the relationship between a “species” and a “kind.” They are not simply 2 different words for the same concept. A “kind” is not a “species.”

So, if they are not describing the same level of similarity, what are these 2 words each describing? If a “kind” is at least somewhat closer to the level of a “family,” then it is a much broader group than a species and a species would then be a far narrower subcategory within a “kind.” They would be at opposite ends or at least somewhat distant points on the same spectrum. In fact, as Dr. Hovind also commented during the debate, creationist theory employs the term “variety” as equivalent but preferential to the term “species.” Consequently, this at least sets up a basic model for understanding how the 2 systems relate to one another. According to this model, the relationship between a “kind” and the varieties in it might be thought of as roughly similar to the relationship between a “family” and the species in it. Thus, although organisms are said to exist within groups called a “kind,” within each kind we would still find “varieties” or “variations.”

It is also important to notice that descriptions of evolution theory itself use “varieties” and “species” interchangeably. When talking about the 10-30 million “species” on the planet today, Britannica refers to this number as “virtually infinite variations.”

“Evolution – More than 2,000,000 existing species of plants and animals have been named and described; many more remain to be discovered—from 10,000,000 to 30,000,000 according to some estimates…The virtually infinite variations on life are the fruit of the evolutionary process.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Notice similarly that Britannica’s description of evolution also refers to the more generic category of distinctions between organisms as “types” and “pre-existing types.”

Likewise, the term “kinds” is also used in evolution to describe the broader distinctions between general categories of organisms, as the following quote demonstrates.

“Evolution, The process of evolution, Species and speciation, The concept of species – Darwin sought to explain the splendid multiformity of the living world: thousands of organisms of the most diverse kinds, from lowly worms to spectacular birds of paradise, from yeasts and molds to oaks and orchids.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Consequently, when the creationist model or even the Biblical text, refers to “kinds,” it is not as though the evolutionist doesn’t know what basic concept is being referred to by this term. Evolutionists themselves speak of the general types and kinds of organisms. In fact, Britannica goes on to further explain that distinguishing between kinds is something that “everyone knows” from “everyday experience” such as being able to distinguish between kinds like humans, dogs, and cats.

“Evolution, The process of evolution, Species and speciation, The concept of species – Everyday experience teaches that there are different kinds of organisms and how to identify them. Everyone knows that people belong to the human species and are different from cats and dogs, which in turn are different from each other.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

The creationist model prefers and centers on these more general terms and distinctions, but the terms themselves and how they are used are understood and employed by both the creationist and evolutionist theories.

However, there is more than just a difference in terminology between these 2 theories. Families and kinds don’t correspond exactly, absolutely, or in all cases. And this is due to the subjective nature of classification itself. Just as there is no guarantee that “family” relationships among plants are equivalent to “family” relationships among animals, there is likewise no guarantee that a “family” relationship among dogs, for example, describes the exact same level of similarity among “bears” or different “birds.” The point of this comparison in terminology is simply to give us a loose starting point to conceptualize each model. Ultimately, the difference between the 2 theories is not over the exact location of the sliding scale for levels like families or kinds, but over whether or not the varieties found in such larger categories like families and kinds are capable of becoming an actual new type of organism different from its original family or kind. The nature of this ultimate disagreement between the 2 theories will continue to be increasingly clarified as we move ahead.

The Actual Observations and Evidence

Now that we’ve established a rudimentary understanding of the basic terms of each model and how they relate to one another, we can discuss the basic concepts of the models. As stated at the start of this section, theories are, by nature, explanations of evidence. So, what exactly is the evidence that is being observed and attempted to be explained by these 2 theories?

What is observed in nature is this:

A group of organisms that have previously been considered to be part of a larger group become reproductively separated from that larger group. Originally being part of the same larger group, the two groups could fully interbreed. But one or more of a number of factors cause a portion of that original larger group to stop mating with the other members of that group. These factors include living in different geographic locations, living in different habitats in the same geographic location, differences in reproductive preference or behavior, or simple physical, mechanical issues such as the size and shape of reproductive organs. This process is very gradual and starts off very minor. However, as they continue to reproduce separately, one or both of the groups begin to acquire distinctions from the other due to a rise in prominence of what are typically external traits (such as beak length, height, or color). And in time, after more and more generations of separated reproduction, the two groups might, although not necessarily, become limited in their ability to reproduce with members of the original larger group.

This is the basic observation and it might be surprising to learn that both evolutionists and creationists agree entirely with this basic description of the observed facts.

Evolutionary theory was advanced and accepted largely through Darwin’s book entitled, The Origin of Species.

“Evolution, The process of evolution, Species and speciation, The concept of species – Darwin sought to explain the splendid multiformity of the living world: thousands of organisms of the most diverse kinds, from lowly worms to spectacular birds of paradise, from yeasts and molds to oaks and orchids. His Origin of Species is a sustained argument showing that the diversity of organisms and their characteristics can be explained as the result of natural processes. Species come about as the result of gradual change prompted by natural selection. Environments are continuously changing in time, and they differ from place to place. Natural selection, therefore, favours different characteristics in different situations. The accumulation of differences eventually yields different species.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Consequently, the cornerstone of evolutionary theory is the origin of new, genetically distinct, and non-interbreeding groups called “species” from already existing “species.” Britannica affirms this in the following 2 quotes, describing this process of “speciation” as “one of the fundamental processes of evolution.” In both quotes, notice how much Britannica’s description of speciation parallels the basic observations outlined above.

“Evolution, The process of evolution, Species and speciation, The origin of species, A model of speciation – Since species are groups of populations reproductively isolated from one another, asking about the origin of species is equivalent to asking how reproductive isolation arises between populations.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Species – biological classification comprising related organisms that share common characteristics and are capable of interbreeding. The term speciation designates the process by which one species of organism splits into two or more species. Speciation is one of the fundamental processes of evolution…Organisms are grouped into species partly according to their morphological, or external, similarities, but more important in classifying sexually reproducing organisms is the organisms' ability to successfully interbreed. Individuals of a single species can mate and produce viable offspring with one another but not with members of other species.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Furthermore, notice in the 2 quotes below that the evolutionary model asserts that this observed processes of “speciation” in turn was able to produce all forms of organisms on earth today from a single, common ancestor. And notice from the second quote that once again the basic concept of “how evolution occurs” is attributed to Charles Darwin whose evolutionary model centered on “the origin of species” and, in fact, had that phrase as the title to the book describing his theory of evolution.

“Species – Because genetic variations originate in individuals of a species and because those individuals pass on their variations only within the species, then it is at the species level that evolution takes place. The evolution of one species into others is called speciation.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Evolution – theory in biology postulating that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations…The diversity of the living world is staggering. More than 2,000,000 existing species of plants and animals have been named and described; many more remain to be discovered—from 10,000,000 to 30,000,000 according to some estimates…The virtually infinite variations on life are the fruit of the evolutionary process. All living creatures are related by descent from common ancestors…Biological evolution is a process of descent with modification. Lineages of organisms change through generations; diversity arises because the lineages that descend from common ancestors diverge through time. The 19th-century English naturalist Charles Darwin argued that organisms come about by evolution, and he provided a scientific explanation, essentially correct but incomplete, of how evolution occurs…” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

In the evolution model, the large-scale arrival of all forms or organisms on earth today from a single ancestor is the gradual, long-term result of this process occurring at the smaller, species level. But this concept, whether or not the process of “speciation” could produce all the forms of life on the planet today, is not yet our focus. What is important here is that both theories accept speciation itself, even while disagreeing about whether or not this process has the potential to produce all organisms on the planet. That is, both creationists and evolutionists recognize that variation occurs within a larger type of organisms through factors like geographic isolation. The agreed-upon result is that smaller subsets of that larger group emerge, which differ from the original larger group (or other subsets of it) in terms of the specific collection of genetic traits that they possess and manifest. Both sides also recognize that in some cases this leads to reproductive isolation from the original larger group or at least from other subsets of that original larger group. Evolutionists call this speciation whereas creations may refer to this as variation or variety within a kind.

The Gene Pool

The process of “speciation,” as outlined above and as agreed upon by both theories, can be described in terms of a “gene pool.”

The scientific field of genetics was founded by an Austrian monk by the name of Gregor Mendel in the middle of the 1800’s.

“Mendel, Gregor – original name (until 1843) Johann Mendel Austrian botanist and plant experimenter, the first to lay the mathematical foundation of the science of genetics, in what came to be called Mendelism.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Heredity, Basic features of heredity, Early conceptions of heredity – Many experiments on plant hybrids were made in the 1800s. These investigations revealed that hybrids were usually intermediate between the parents. They more or less incidentally recorded most of the facts that later led Gregor Mendel (see below) to formulate his celebrated rules and to found the theory of the gene. Apparently, none of Mendel's predecessors saw the significance of the data that were being accumulated.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

As proposed by Mendel, populations have an existing “gene pool,” which is the total number of genes possessed collectively by all of the members of the population.

“Heredity, Heredity and evolution, The gene in populations. The gene pool – A Mendelian population is said to have a gene pool. The gene pool is the sum total of the genes carried by the individual members of the population. The gene pool also continues through time. The genes of the individuals of the generation now living come from a sample of the genes of the previous generation; if these individuals reproduce, their genes will pass into the gene pool of the following generations.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

As indicated by the quote, the gene pool continues over time as the genes of one generation are passed on from parents to offspring in successive generations.

Although giving a uniquely evolutionary articulation, the following quote reflects the basic role that gene pools play in speciation.

“Species – Interbreeding only within the species is of great importance for evolution in that individuals of one species share a common gene pool that members of other species do not. Within a single pool there is always a certain amount of variation among individuals, and those whose genetic variations leave them at a disadvantage in a particular environment tend to be eliminated in favour of those with advantageous variations. This process of natural selection results in the gene pool's evolving in such a way that the advantageous variations become the norm.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Specifically, both theories agree that the distribution of existing genes changes or shifts around in each successive generation depending on which parents interbreed to produce offspring. And, in some cases, over time certain genes that were present in the original population may cease to be present in particular subpopulations if members with those genes don’t reproduce or survive to reproduce.

However, to avoid creating confusion by the quote above, a few comments should be made about Britannica’s statement that such shifts in the distributions of a gene pool indicate that “the gene pool is evolving.” Because the English word “evolve” is a synonym for “change,” this process of shifting distribution of existing genes can be referred to as the gene pool “evolving.” But to go further and infer or perceive that such shifts in an existing gene pool prove that all modern organisms originated from a common ancestor is simply an equivocation on the term “evolve.” In one sense, the word “evolve” simply refers to the shifting of the distribution and availability of existing genes from generation to generation. In the other sense, “evolution” is perceived to be a technical term denoting the theory that all forms of life came from a single, common ancestor. The mistaken impression that often results is that proving shifts in the distribution of the existing genes in a gene pool equates to proving that all life forms “evolved” or originated from a single ancestor. However, it is a mistake to think the 2 meanings of “evolve” here are identical or equivalent so that establishing one means proving the other. Furthermore, to actually assert that the 2 meanings are interchangeable, so that one proves the other, is a logical fallacy of ambiguity, known as the fallacy of equivocation.

Fallacies of Ambiguity:
Equivocation – the same term is used with two different meanings.

Setting aside such equivocations, all that both sides agree is observed is that the distribution of existing genes in a gene pool shift around in each generation according to the advantages certain genes and traits have for a particular environment. In addition, both sides agree to the basic effect this shifting can potentially have on the different organisms sharing that gene pool if particular subgroups of the population begin to breed in isolation from the larger gene pool. The peppered moths of England are often cited as an example of these factors. Changes in their surrounding environment are stated to have resulted in an advantage for dark coloration over light coloration, resulting in a rise in the occurrence of dark coloration in the population as more and more light colored moths failed to live to reproduce.

“Evolution, VI SPECIATION – When the British countryside near cities became blackened by smoke from industrial processes, the lighter moths, previously well disguised against light-colored tree trunks, were easily found by birds and thus became less fit. The dark moths became common because they were more difficult to discern against the darker background. A single gene, coding for the dark color rather than the light color, was spread by means of natural selection and raised to a high frequency in industrial regions. Subsequent reduction of smoke pollution resulted in a reduction of the dark moth variety. The light and dark moth varieties belong to the same species and interbreed freely. If pollution had continued, however, the rural moth population would have become entirely light and the industrial entirely dark. Then each population would be subject to somewhat different selective pressures because the two environments vary. In time, the dark and light populations would differ by groups of genes, with each group advantageous locally. The moth populations might eventually become incapable of interbreeding.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

As described in this illustrative example, the removal of genetic variety from 1 or both of the populations of peppered moths living in different environments could, theoretically, have ultimately led to the 2 groups becoming incapable of interbreeding.

The function of a gene pool and its relationship to the production of “varieties and kinds” or “species” can be rendered in terms of the following 2 illustrations. (See Gene Pool Figures 1 and 2.)

These 2 illustrations are both identical renderings of the description of the actual observations agreed upon by both evolutionists and creationists and outlined in the previous segment. The only difference between the 2 illustrations is that on one, evolutionary terms are used and on the other the roughly equivalent creationist terms are used. Both sides agree that over time, reproductively isolated populations move toward the shallow end of the gene pool, where genetic variety is lessened from the larger, original pool. The organisms go from more heterozygous genetic make-up in the original, larger gene pool to a more homozygous genetic make-up the farther they are toward the shallower end of the pool.

If a subgroup becomes sufficiently inbred moving toward the far, shallow end of the original gene pool, eventually the organisms can become actually genetically incapable of interbreeding with some or all other members of the original, larger gene pool, just as stated in the previous illustration involving the peppered moths. In the creationist model, the original gene pool is known as the “kind” and it might be thought of as loosely equivalent to the level of a “family” in the modern classifications system. And in the creationist model, the process of moving toward a more and more homozygous area of the gene pool is described in terms of “varieties being produced from the kind,” which is the original gene pool. Similarly, in the evolution model, this process is conceptualized in terms of what was once a “family” that shared the same gene pool splitting up into different “species.” Here the term “kinds” and “family” are roughly equivalent to the original gene pool and the terms “variety” and “species” or “variation” and “speciation” are roughly equivalent, denoting the narrowing of the gene pool among certain populations through reproductive isolation.

The terms heterozygous and homozygous refers to the genetic make-up of an individual organism. Organisms usually have 2 corresponding genes for each specific trait. If both genes code for the exact same version of the trait (such as short and short or tall and tall) then the individual is homozygous concerning that trait. If both genes code for different versions of the same trait (such as one short and one tall) then the individual is heterozygous concerning that trait. And consequently, the physical appearance of an organism is determined by its heterozygous or homozygous genetic composition, even though dominant genes often cause heterozygous individuals (one dominant and one recessive gene) to look the same as individuals that are homozygous in which both genes are of the dominant version.

“Homozygote – an organism with identical pairs of genes (or alleles) for a specific trait. If both of the two gametes (sex cells) that fuse during fertilization carry the same form of the gene for a specific trait, the organism is said to be homozygous for that trait. In a heterozygous organism, or heterozygote, the genes for a specific trait are different. Because genes may be either dominant or recessive, the genetic composition (genotype) of an organism cannot always be determined by the physical appearance (phenotype).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

However, population genetics also asserts that the genetic composition of an entire population can be described in terms of gene frequency of the gene pool itself.

“Heredity, Heredity and evolution, The gene in populations, The Hardy–Weinberg principle – The genetic composition of a population can meaningfully be described in terms of the frequencies of various alleles of the genes in the gene pool.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Consequently, a portion of the original population becomes reproductively isolated and lost genetic variety can be considered more homozygous than the original gene pool of the original population. In the creationist model, the original population of a kind would have been heterozygous at least either in terms of the overall representation of all the genes among all of the original members or more probably in terms of the original members of the kind each being heterozygous. This creates a uniform population in which the fullness of the original gene pool is maintained and, in which, most of the members of the species are going to look very similar, without producing widely distinct varieties as we see today as a result of more homozygous populations, such as the cheetah among its particular kind or family of cat.

The fact that gene frequency will tend to stay the same from generation to generation unless affected by external conditions is stated both in the Hardy-Weinberg principle and as a general rule of Mendelian genetics.

“Heredity, Heredity and evolution, The gene in populations, The Hardy–Weinberg principle – In 1908, Godfrey Harold Hardy and Wilhelm Weinberg independently formulated a theorem that became the foundation of population genetics. According to the Hardy–Weinberg principle, two or more gene alleles will have the same frequency in the gene pool generation after generation, until some agent acts to change that frequency.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Heredity and evolution, Selection as an agent of change, Natural selection and Darwinian fitness – Sexual reproduction under simple (Mendelian) inheritance is a conservative force that tends to maintain the genetic status quo in a population. If a gene frequency is 1 percent in a population, it tends to remain at 1 percent indefinitely unless some force acts to change it. Outside of the laboratory, the most powerful force for changing gene frequencies is natural selection.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Since the frequency and content of genetic variety tends to stay the same in a gene pool from generation to generation, there are only 2 possible mechanisms for changing the frequency or content of genetic variety in a gene pool: mutation and environmental change. Environmental change can occur as portions of the population migrate geographically or even just locally into new habitats in the same area. However, it is known that even hypothetical beneficial mutations would not change the genetic composition of a gene pool unless there was an accompanying change of environment as well.

“Evolution, VI SPECIATION – Because all the established genes in a population have been monitored for fitness by selection, newly arisen mutations are unlikely to enhance fitness unless the environment changes so as to favor the new gene activity, as in the gene for dark color in the peppered moth. Novel genes that cause large changes rarely promote fitness and are usually lethal.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Consequently, variations in environment are the only force that can alter the genetic content and the gene frequency of populations, even as the following quote plainly states.

Furthermore, as portions of a population move into new environments or as the environments themselves change, the gene frequencies will shift and some variety will be removed by natural selection. (Notice that this is a process of removing genetic variety, not adding variety.) The loss of variety will produce a more homozygous subpopulation, which will now start to look more externally distinct among the overall original population.

It is a significant fact that the contents of the gene pool are going to stay uniform in all subpopulations no matter how much they separate geographically until or unless they encounter actual, different environmental conditions. The reason for this significance is that the creationist model of the earth’s environment before the Flood contains little or no variations in habitat or climate anywhere on the earth’s surface. This is based upon Genesis 8:21-22 which is the first mention of alternation between seedtime and harvest, summer and winter, hot and cold.

Genesis 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. 22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

Being the first mention of winter and cold and their alternation with summer and heat is understood within the creationist model to designate the onset of seasonal variations in temperature over the surface of the earth. To avoid an unnecessary tangent, this model can be summarized as follows. The earth receives its surface temperature as a result of the sun heating its atmosphere.

“Earth, The atmosphere and hydrosphere, The atmosphere – It is not surprising that the Earth, as a small planet (with a rather weak gravitational field) at fairly warm temperatures (due to its proximity to the Sun)…” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

The earth’s seasonal shifts from warm to cold or summer and winter are a result of the tilt of earth’s rotational axis.

“Earth, Basic planetary data – The tilt (inclination) of the Earth's axis to its orbit (23.5°), also typical, is responsible for the change of seasons.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Season – any of four divisions of the year according to consistent annual changes in the weather. The seasons—winter, spring, summer, and autumn…Outside the tropics and the polar regions, the essential characteristic of the annual cycle is a temperature oscillation between a single maximumand a single minimum. This oscillation results from the annual variation in the angle at which the Sun's rays reach the Earth's surface and from the annual variation in the duration of sunlight on the Earth's surface each day. As the Earth moves in its orbit around the Sun, its axis maintains an early constant orientation in space, inclined about 66°33′ to the orbital plane. During the six-month half of each orbit when the North Pole is inclined toward the Sun, a point in the Northern Hemisphere receives the Sun's rays at an angle closer to 90° than does a point in the Southern Hemisphere; this causes greater heating and more hours of daylight in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere. During the other six months, these conditions are reversed.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Based upon Genesis 8, the creationist model asserts that the earth’s axis would not have been tilted prior to the Flood. Instead, the tilt and the Flood resulted from a potential asteroid impact that triggered both the cracking of the earth’s surface, the submarine volcanoes and massive fountain-like activity, and ultimately the flooding of the planet. Prior to this catastrophic event, the axis is hypothesized to have had no tilt, the sun would have heated the entire surface of the earth uniformly, and consequently there was no seasonal variation in temperature. The uniform climate in turn would have drastically reduced the variety of environments themselves. Likewise, a catastrophic global flood contributed significantly to the large-scale environmental differences that we see present in the world today and impacting speciation or variation as described above. Thus, the pre-flood world, prior to the catastrophic environmental changes brought about by the flood, would not have had the environmental diversity that we see today and so would have promoted stability (and homogeneity rather than variety) in the gene pool of any particular kind of organism worldwide.

This is relevant to our current focus on the preservation of the full variety of the gene pool because without environmental differentiation, the gene pools of every subpopulation on the planet would be static and would not shift to produce wide swings in variety. Instead, no matter how far it migrated, each subpopulation would retain the heterozygous gene pool of the original kind. Consequently, an individual such as Noah could collect the individuals from each kind without worrying about creating a genetic bottleneck by accidentally picking a pair that was drastically homozygous and reduced in variety. Conversely, the wide swings in variety that we see today are unique to the post-flood environment. The wide range of differences we see in subpopulations today result from certain existing traits being brought to the surface with increased prominence as natural selection removes disadvantageous traits from individual subpopulations according to their particular environment.

Furthermore, this is why it is more difficult to reconstruct the original “kinds” today than it would have been before or even right after the Flood, when the existing population was comprised of individuals more closely representing the heterozygous, original gene pool. This is in direct contrast to today where all of the existing subpopulations are comprised of varieties produced by much more homozygous representations of the original gene pool. In other words, before or right after the Flood it would have been easy to identify the boundaries of a kind, because all of the members would have looked roughly the same, representing what the full kind looked like. Instead of having to reconstruct the kind from more homozygous varieties, we would have had access to individuals exhibiting the full, original gene pool.

Defining the Boundaries of Kinds and Species

One of the critical questions for each theory involves defining the critical group that is the focus of the theory. In evolution theory, the focus is on the species. As we have seen, the entire theory that on a large-scale all life forms originated through descent from a common ancestor results from the small-scale process of new species originating from existing species. As such, the formation of new species is fundamental to evolutionary theory. Consequently, it is essential to be able to identify with certainty that a new species has in fact formed. And according to ideal evolutionary norms, a new species has formed when two groups that were formerly the same species can no longer interbreed on the genetic level.

“Evolution, The process of evolution, Species and speciation, The concept of species – External similarity is the common basis for identifying individuals as being members of the same species. But there is more to it than that; a bulldog, a terrier, and a golden retriever are very different in appearance, but they are all dogs because they can interbreed. People can also interbreed with one another, and so can cats, but people cannot interbreed with dogs or cats, nor these with each other. It is, then, clear that although species are usually identified by appearance, there is something basic, of great biological significance, behind similarity of appearance; individuals of a species are able to interbreed with one another but not with members of other species. This is expressed in the following definition: Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups. The ability to interbreed is of great evolutionary importance, because it determines that species are independent evolutionary units.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Since the ability or inability to interbreed is the described as the definition for whether or not two groups are the same species or different species, what if all the different species were actually able to interbreed with at least some other members of the species in an interconnected web? Are they really different species? And if they are not really different species, is the arrival of new organisms really occurring?

In reality, although the ability to interbreed is used as the distinguishing definition for species, this factor does not actually work as ideally as the theory states. The following quote from Britannica explains the difficulty.

“Evolution, The process of evolution, Species and speciation, The concept of species – It is, then, clear that although species are usually identified by appearance, there is something basic, of great biological significance, behind similarity of appearance; individuals of a species are able to interbreed with one another but not with members of other species…Although the criterion for deciding whether individuals belong to the same species is clear, there may be ambiguity in practice for two reasons. One is lack of knowledge; it may not be known for certain whether individuals living in different sites belong to the same species, because it is not known whether they can naturally interbreed. The other reason for ambiguity is rooted in the nature of evolution as a gradual process. Two geographically separate populations that at one time were members of the same species later may have diverged into two different species. Since the process is gradual, there is not a particular point at which it is possible to say that the two populations have become two different species.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

As the quote above reflects, defining species by the inability to interbreed is not fully applied in the real practice of defining species because the process in which “new, different organisms” are formed is so slow. In fact, in evolutionary theory, it takes so long for a “new and different organism” to arrive, that the steps along the way are virtually imperceptibly minute. This makes identifying exactly when two groups actually become definitely 2 species impossible and for the same reason, it is likewise impossible to identify exactly how far along toward that threshold the two groups are at any given point in time. In a debate with creationist Dr. Kent Hovind, Wayne State University evolutionary biologist Dr. William Moore acknowledged and then gave the following description of this problem.

“Let me speak actually to this issue of what is a species. This is my area of research and to be honest with you, I don’t know. Now actually, and this is a pervasive problem – or a pervasive topic of conversation, let me put it that way – it’s really not a problem in evolutionary biology. I just came back from an international ornithological congress in Durban, South Africa and there was a whole session, symposium, devoted to species definitions and believe me it was very contentious. However, Darwin, in a sense, wrote the origin of species, but he also created the problem, ‘What is a species?’…what Darwin said is a species arises in a continuum. And the problem is that when we see species, we see distinct entities. Even though wolves and dogs can interbreed, anyone, at least anyone better be able to tell the difference between a dog and a wolf. There is a profound difference between them. There is this discontinuity. There are really few intermediate forms…And the problem with defining species, I argue, is the same as that in defining kind. A process of evolution has occurred and as a result, there are circumstances, there are situations that are in transition. One of the groups of birds that I work on, the flickers, red and yellow-shafted flickers of North America are a prime example of two entities that were recognized as distinct species. They were described as such, actually I think, by Linnaeus, and certainly recognized as such by Audubon and then suddenly, one day there was a small hybrid zone found on the Great Plains. And it was found that they interbreed. It’s a case where they are in the process of speciation. And this is why evolutionary biologists have a difficult time defining species. There are these intermediate situations…It is by a process of descent with modification through insensibly distinct intermediate forms. It’s a continuum. And as I mentioned earlier that’s the problem with defining species because the concept of species involves the discontinuity that we observe between carp and goldfish, between red-shafted flickers and yellow-shafted flickers…I might add that there are actually a number of cases among animals and many cases in plants, where “species” – I’m going to begin to put that in quotes – have different chromosome numbers and yet hybridize to some extent.” – Evolutionary Biologist Dr. William Moore, “The History of Life: Creation or Evolution?” Debate: Dr. Kent Hovind vs. Dr. William Moore at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, www.drdino.com, Windows Media Video

Here Dr. Moore describes the process of speciation as inherently involving “insensibly distinct intermediate forms” and the result is a continuum in which it is impossible to define the boundaries of species, particularly even by whether or not they can interbreed. Moreover, midway through the quote he asserts that this problem of defining species is equivalent to the problem creationists have in defining kinds.

And Dr. Moore is quite correct here. The creationist and evolutionist models are on equal ground on this point. There is a continuum in the creationism model as well. In the evolution model, this continuum causes difficulty in defining the boundaries of a species. Similarly, in the continuum found in the creation model causes difficulty in establishing the boundaries of a kind. And just like the evolution model, the difficulty in defining the boundary surrounds the issue of interbreeding. This issue provides an opportunity to further examine and define the creationist concept of a “kind.” This becomes apparent in our gene pool illustration. A similar illustration can also be drawn once again substituting the term “species” for “varieties” and a larger category like “families” for “kinds.” (See Gene Pool Figures 3 and 4.)

Different varieties are produced all along the gene pool, particularly along the movement toward more homozygous populations. In addition, it must be mentioned that in both theories not just the evolution but the creationism theory as well, the different varieties produced all along the gene pool are, in fact, produced by the processes of natural selection. In both views, natural selection is simply the process by which certain genes are reduced and eventually eliminated from different local populations due to the fact that those traits are less advantageous in the conditions of that particular local environment. In short, natural selection is the mechanism responsible for “shallowing” the gene pool causing certain “varieties” or “species” to experience a reduced collection of genetic material.

But more to the point, as Dr. Moore articulated the problem with defining the boundaries of a species is that “a species arises in a continuum. And the problem is that when we see species, we see distinct entities.” Likewise if we want to reconstruct the boundaries of the original kind, at any given point in time, all we can observe are the existing varieties produced by a kind. And we have to reconstruct backward to what the original kind was from the varieties we see today. Like defining the boundaries of species, the starting place for this process is interbreeding capacity. Here the process is conceptually the reverse of speciation. In evolution, the inability to interbreed is used to define a new species. In defining a kind, if two groups can interbreed, they are probably just different varieties of the same original kind. Thus, connecting all the varieties or species that are able to interbreed at least with some other variety or species is at least one initial way to reconstruct a kind. (See Defining Kind Boundaries Figure 1.)

(In Defining Kind Boundaries Figure 1, red lines are used to show which varieties can still interbreed with one another. The center of the circle represents the heterozygous core of the kind with a high degree of genetic variety available. Moving out towards the edge of the circle represents less genetic variety and consequently may include an eventually loss of the ability to interbreed with some or all of the rest of the kind.)

However, just as is the case in with speciation, the ability to interbreed is an ideal that is cannot be fully implemented as an absolute standard for practical reasons. Once again, the 2 theories are on equal ground on this point. But the reasons are different. In the creation model, some varieties may have become so homozygous, so far into the shallow end of the gene pool that they are no longer able to interbreed with any members of the original kind to which they belong. This effect is predicted by the creationist understanding of how kinds produce and relate to individual varieties toward a shallow end of a gene pool. Thus, just as evolutionists argue that the ability to interbreed does not necessarily mean 2 groups are the same species, in the creationist model, just because 2 groups are unable to interbreed does not necessarily mean they aren’t the same kind. Furthermore, just like the essential evolutionary model internally predicts and explains why the dilemma arises with regard to speciation, the creationist model internally predicts and explains why the dilemma arises with regard to eventual limits on interbreeding within a kind. Both theories face a similar inability to use reproductive capacity to fully define the boundaries of their core grouping and both theories have built in predictions and explanations for why this occurs. There is nothing inconsistent in either theory about the fact that they face these corresponding dilemmas.

Furthermore, it is important to clear up a misperception about the creationist model on this point. It is often perceived that the creationist model requires and predicts that all members of the same kind will be able to reproduce with one another at all times. This is not the case at all. If we look at the text that asserts the model, we can see that it does not in any way stipulate that all members of a kind will or should perpetually be able to interbreed with one another.

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day…20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

As we can see, the model says nothing whatsoever about the ability of all members of a kind to perpetually interbreed. All that the model asserts is that members of a kind will always reproduce that same kind. No matter how many other members of its kind an organism becomes reproductively isolated from, no new kind will ever result as that isolated organism reproduces. No matter how isolated and inbred it becomes, it will always and only produce its own kind. That is all that the model predicts and stipulates.

In fact, as articulated by this text, the creationist model is minimalist in the sense that it’s only inherent assertion is a denial its evolutionary counterpart, which states that members of one type of organism will eventually and gradually reproduce a new and different type of organism. The 2 theories are really, simply opposites on this same point, which brings us to the actual difference between the 2 theories.

Actual Differences between the 2 Theories

NOTE: It should be pointed out in the illustration below, that the additional “gene pools” extending on either side of the central “pool” do NOT represent another population of the same organism in a different geographic area. Instead, the gene pool represents the full worldwide population of a particular organism. Consequently, the additional “gene pools” on either side represent, not other populations of the same organism, but new types of organisms with new genes and, therefore, new traits, features, structures, and organs not present in the preceding gene pool. (See Gene Pool Figures 5 and 6.)

As illustrated above, both theories agree to the observations that larger gene pools, which might be termed families or kinds, have enough genetic variety that when subpopulations enter into different environments, the disadvantageous genes and traits are lost due to natural selection. Both theories agree that as this process continues toward the shallow end of that original gene pool and more and more traits are lost, eventually a particular subpopulation may no longer be able to interbreed with other members of the original population.

In this light, the exact difference between the 2 competing theories is simply and clearly displayed. While recognizing that existing gene pools manifest varieties in subpopulations as a result of natural selection removing genetic material that was present in the original gene pool, creation theory draws an unbreakable boundary or limit around this observed process, stating that varieties are produced only by the loss of genetic material in subpopulations of a kind. Creation theory denies the inflow of new beneficial genes that create new traits, features, organs, and structures not present in the original gene pool. And because variety does not result from the addition of new, beneficial genes and traits but simply the manifestation of genes already existing in the gene pool, each kind (or family) is an isolated entity. As a result, no new kind will ever be produced from a previous kind of organism. There is a continuum within each kind but that continuum does not extend from one kind to another. This is represented in the illustration by the locked chain around the kind continuum.

Evolution theory, on the other hand, not only recognizes the observed process that existing gene pools manifest varieties (or species) as a result of the loss of genetic material in subpopulations though natural selection, but evolutionary theory asserts that beyond this process, there is also an inflow of new, beneficial genetic material that was not at all present in the existing gene pool. Evolutionary theory asserts that this new and beneficial genetic material is created by the mechanism of beneficial mutation. In the evolution illustration above, the inflow of new genes through the process of beneficial mutation is represented by the stream of new genes pouring into the shallow end of the gene pool, causing it to spill over as new genes fill up an entirely new gene pool with traits, features, organs, and structures not present in the previous gene pool. As a result, new kinds are produced from previous kinds of organisms. Thus, in addition to the agreed-upon continuum within each kind, evolution asserts an extension of that continuum between all kinds or families, between every different category and type of organism.

Consequently, in order to prove evolution theory over creation theory, it is simply not enough to point to the process of continuum within a kind. What must be proved is the existence of the inflow of new genes for new traits, features, organs, and structures sufficient to create a different gene pool with a whole new composition of genes that didn’t exist before. Likewise, to prove evolution theory over creation theory, it is not simply enough to point to existing gene pools manifesting varieties of the same kind of organism with all the same traits, features, structures, and organs that were present in the original gene pool (which creationism recognizes). What must be proved is that one, at least one, member of any existing gene pool has ever produced an organism with beneficial traits, features, structures, or organs not present in the existing gene pool. What must be proved is not a kind manifesting different varieties of what is still the same kind, but in effect a kind ever producing something other than its own, same kind of organism.

In short, what must be proven through observation and empirical evidence is the breaking of the locked chain around the continuum within a kind, within a family. What must be proven through observation and empirical evidence is the stream of inflowing new beneficial genes producing new traits, features, structures, and organs that didn’t exist before in the gene pool of the population. What must be proven through observation and empirical evidence is that one kind of organism has ever produced something that is not its own kind.

To give an example in real terms, it is not enough for evolution to demonstrate different species of finches varying from one another and perhaps eventually not being able to reproduce with each other or even to show one species of bird not being able to reproduce with other species of birds. Creationism also recognizes and accounts for these things. In order to disprove creationism, evolution must demonstrate through observation and empirical evidence is something akin to a bird being produced by a reptile.

And quite frankly, neither the fossil record nor current observations in nature do or even can prove that. Evolutionists admit that, even if they did occur, such changes would be so subtle from one generation to the next as to be imperceptible and defy detection.

“Evolution, The process of evolution, Species and speciation, The concept of species – It is, then, clear that although species are usually identified by appearance, there is something basic, of great biological significance, behind similarity of appearance; individuals of a species are able to interbreed with one another but not with members of other species…Although the criterion for deciding whether individuals belong to the same species is clear, there may be ambiguity in practice for two reasons…The other reason for ambiguity is rooted in the nature of evolution as a gradual process. Two geographically separate populations that at one time were members of the same species later may have diverged into two different species. Since the process is gradual, there is not a particular point at which it is possible to say that the two populations have become two different species.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

And evolutionists admit that the fossil record is utterly incapable, by its very nature, of demonstrating speciation because the fossil record simply cannot tell us whether or not similar organisms could interbreed.

“The process of evolution, Patterns and rates of species evolution, Reconstruction of evolutionary history, Gradual and punctuational evolution – Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from any other such groups. Speciation involves, therefore, the development of reproductive isolation between populations previously able to interbreed. Paleontologists recognize species by their different morphologies as preserved in the fossil record, but fossils cannot provide evidence of the development of reproductive isolation because new species that are reproductively isolated from their ancestors are often morphologically indistinguishable from them.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Consequently, even if an organism of one kind ever produced an organism of another kind, it would be undetectable and it would not be revealed in the fossil record either. How do you falsify a theory with a prediction like that? It’s either false because it makes a prediction that we never see occurring and that we see contradicted by every reproduction that we do see, or it’s unscientific because the nature of the prediction is un-falsifiable. And with no evidence from either present observations or the fossil record to demonstrate the theoretical continuum extending between different kinds or families or types of organisms, that part of the theory of evolution must be accepted on blind, pre-suppositional belief for which there is no evidence or corroborating observation.

Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution

Often origins debates between creationists and evolutions will include the terms “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution.” These 2 terms simply refer to the distinctions and processes discussed above.

Micro-evolution refers to the continuum strictly within a kind or family, within a type of organism in which we see varieties of that kind as natural selection removes existing genes from the subpopulations. Macro-evolution refers to the extension of a continuum between all kinds or families or types of organisms, so that not only is natural selection removing existing genes from subpopulations, but subpopulations are turning into new types of organisms because beneficial mutation is adding new genes, new traits, features, structures, and organs, so that all life on earth today descended from a common ancestor by means of this process of beneficial mutation.

Ultimately, it is macro-evolution that must be proved. Both theories agree with the process of micro-evolution and both theories incorporate that process into their respective models. However, creationists prefer to call micro-evolution by the term “variation” or “variation within a kind” in order to avoid the logical fallacy of equivocation, which perceives or asserts that micro-evolutionary processes are the same as and prove the occurrence of macro-evolutionary processes simply because both terms utilize the word “evolution.”

Conclusion

With our definition and expanded commentary of creation theory now complete, we turn our attention to the definition of evolutionary theory, followed by the expanded commentary concerning that theory.