One of the most difficult things in the world is to try and get 5 Ph.D.s to agree on anything. I remember this piece of advice being given to me as I prepared for my thesis defense. "IN SIX DAYS" contains a collection of essays from 50 different scientists, all holding Ph.D.s in various different scientific fields. In this case, they all actually DO agree on something: that the world was created in 6 days, less than 10,000 years ago. If nothing else, it is quite an interesting look at how different people tackle the same question, from various different viewpoints, disciplines, and levels of expertise, ranging from mathematicians and physicists to orthodontists and meterologists, or from Architectural Engineers to Zoologists.

I was a bit curious to see WHY it was that these people all believed that the world is less than 10,000 years old. What was their primary motivation for such a stance? Was it purely a scientific debate, or was there a possible religous connection? All 50 of the essays did have one thing in common, in addition to their belief in a "young-earth", and that is that they all invoke belief in a Christian God and a literal reading of Scriptures as their main motivation for their "scientific" position. A good summary of the position taken by many of the essays is found in the comments of Dr. Larry Vardiman, a meterologist who works for the Institute of Creation Reserach, in the U.S.

"....The most telling argument for me in rejecting evolution, however, is the meaningless and lack of value it signifies. If evolution occurred, then my existence is not a special event in the Creator's plan. Yet, the Bible says I am special; I was created for a purpose." (page 307)

While I can certainly understand this point of view, in my opinion it is hardly a compelling "scientific" argument. It is not that I do not think there is purpose to life, nor do I think evolution means that one has no choice but to adopt a materialist view of life. However, I feel (rather strongly) that it is not the place of science to instill moral values, or to give a "purpose" to life.

In all fairness, some of the essays were quite well written, and contained clear, lucid arguments, often citing scientific evidence in their particular field of research, as to why they felt the earth cannot be more than several thousand years old. I thought two of the essays contained compelling descriptions of the young earth position. Dr. Keith Wanser, who is a professor of physics at California State University in Fullerton, presented a positive case for why he believes the world is less than 10,000 years old, discusses several results of the scientific investigations of creationist research, and refrains from much of the usual attacks on evolution. Dr. John Rankin, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Computer Science at La Trobe University in Australia, also wrote a good essay about how he has not been able to model how the "clumpiness" of the universe happend after the big bang. I am not a physicist, but from what I have read on this subject, this is a real problem. However, I don't really see why this should be any more of a problem to the evolutionists than to the creationists - to me, from a teleological level, at least in the big bang, there is a point in time where everything - the whole universe and all matter as we know it - was created, from nothing. Now that sounds a lot like creation ex nihlo, as described in Genesis. So what's their problem? I cannot imagine a more clear case where science and theology agree - here science is saying that everything was created at this point in time, and we don't know what happened before this, because time itself did not exist!

However, many of the scientific arguments against evolution in the 50 essays were the same old arguments from the 19th century, that have been copied endlessly again and again into the literature, without anyone bothering to see whether they are still true or even if they make sense. Some of them, in particular the age of the geological column, and the fossil record, are well covered in Niles Eldredge's new book "The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism (W.H.Freeman and Company, New York, 2000). I will outline a few of the points below, but encourage the interested reader to have a look through "The Triumph of Evolution", in particular for strong arguments about the geological and fossil record.

Does evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
At least 10 of the essays in this book make reference to the well known "scientific fact" that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. By the same reasoning, the development of a bunny rabbit from a single cell to a full grown organism also violates the 2nd law - it starts from a single cell and develops to a more complicated fully developed animal. How can this be? Of course, by a flow of energy through the system, just like what happens in larger ecosystems, which become more orderly at the expense of energy flowing through the system. If you look at the big picture, more randomness is generated than the order that is gained - but you have to look at the total flow of energy through the system, not just the organism or ecosystem on its own. Organisms drink "negative entropy", in the words of Erwin Schrödinger. The argument using the 2nd law of thermodynamics was made against evolution in the 19th century, and has been refuted again and again, yet it still keeps coming.

What about all those gaps in the fossil record?
Similarly, the lack of a good fossil record is brought up in the majority of the essays in the book, yet many of the "missing" transitional forms have been found, and the fossil record is quite complete and solid, as Niles Elderidge thoroughly explains in his book, "The Triumph of Evolution". Things have changed in the past 150 years since Chuck Darwin's Origin of the Species was written. Imagine someone trying to make arguments about whether artificial intelligence is likely or not, or if cloning a human was possible, based on book that they have read which was written in the 1850's. The field of biology is currently witnessing a massive explosion in the amount of DNA sequence information. I think it might be good for the creationists to read something like Elderidge's book, written a bit more recently than their old arguments from the 19th century.

What about the new theory of Intelligent Design?
Well, first of all, this "new" theory ain't that new - it is essentially the same idea as described by Paley in the 19th century, and (according to Phil Johnson) the idea of "intelligent design" has been around for more than 2000 years! Dr. Henry Zuill, professor of biology at Atlantic Union College, claims that entire ecosystems are "Irreducibly Complex", just like bacterial flagella - all the parts are necessary, and this is proof that they must have been created all at once, by an intelligent designer. Several other authors suggest that cells are also "irreducibly complex", as well as metabolism - which is something that Mike Behe seems to think might not qualify for this label, in his book (DARWIN's BLACK BOX: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Michael J. Behe, The Free Press, New York, 1996). (Note that the date of this book varies in citations in the different essays; it ranges from 1991 through 1999.) I have already written quite about this in my review of Mike Behe's book, "DARWIN'S BLACK BOX". The interested reader is encouraged to have a look at this review for more details.

Once again I want to come back to my question, "WHY do the creationists make these arguments?" Is it really based SOLEY on scientific evidence, as many claim? I suspect that more often than not, many of them are reacting to "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" - that is, they are not comfortable with the philosophical idea of their God using evolution as a method for development of species, and especially, the development of humans. I can fully understand this, but the bottom line is that this is a religious conviction, and as such should not be taught in the public schools as "science". Of course, people are free to hold their own beliefs, and I think that publication of such a book is a good example of such an expression. So please don't misunderstand me - I am not saying that this book should not be published or that these people should not be allowed to express their opinion - but merely that I think this should be classified as a religious idea and debate, rather than a scientific one. True, some scientists have also abused science by trying to force their athiesm on people. That is wrong as well, but certainly does not justify trying to smuggle a particular brand of Christianity into the classroom under the pretension of being science.

I want to emphasise the point that I am quite sure that many of the authors are very intelligent, and even educated at some of the best universities - for example, one of the contributors is Dr. Kurt Wise, who was a Ph.D. student under Stephen Jay Gould, at Harvard University. Dr. Wise got his Ph.D. in Geology from Harvard - not bad, as far as credentials go! So why does he believe in creationism? He is critical of the fossil record, but he is honest in his conclusion:

"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand." (page 332)

Some of the essays were a bit less serious, and more entertaining. One of my favourite essays in the whole book (360 pages total), is from Dr. E. Theo Agard, a medical physicist:

"My belief in the supernatural creation of this world in six days is summarised largely in the following points: The theory of evolution is not as sound as many people would believe. In particular, the problem of the origin of life is well stated by the question:

'Which came first, the chicken or the egg?'

Every egg anyone has ever seen was laid by a chicken and
every chicken hatched from an egg.

Hence the first chicken or the first egg which appeared on the scene in any other way would be unnatural, to say the least.

The natural laws under which scientists work are adequate for explaining how the world functions, but are inadequate for its origin, just as the tools which service an automobile are inadequate for its manufacture." (pages 196-197)

So. There you have it. Any more questions?

• A List of Books on DNA


• A List of (several hundred) Books on Evolution
• What is Dave Reading Now? A list of what books I've read recently, which I try to keep updated every couple of weeks or so.