Do Fossils Really Prove Evolution?
Posted by truthtalklive on 26 February, 2010
Can Darwinian evolution be validated by the fossil record?
Today on Truthtalk Live, Friday guest-host Alex McFarland welcomes Dr. John Morris, President of the Institute for Creation Research.
Alex is President of Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, NC and he’s host of his own nationally syndicated program called “Sound Rezn”.
Stay connected!
10 Comments on “Do Fossils Really Prove Evolution?”
“Darwinian evolution”, guys? This term was fine…in the early 1900′s, but it’s rather subjective and outdated in these modern times. I may be wrong, but I think that most modern scientist mainly only use terms like Darwinism and Darwinian Evolution to describe what the natural sciences WERE, as compared to what they are NOW, if you see what I’m getting at.
Dr. John Morris, we all would be most grateful if you or someone under your command at the Institute For Creation Research would come here and debate with all of us on this topic. Especially on things like Genetic Drift and Gene Flow……if you think that you actually can.
John: I may be wrong, but I think that most modern scientist mainly only use terms like Darwinism and Darwinian Evolution to describe what the natural sciences WERE, as compared to what they are NOW, if you see what I’m getting at.
You’re exactly right. Our current ideas are generally encapsulated in a term like “The Modern Synthesis”. Sometimes, you might even hear some refer to “The Neo-Darwinian Synthesis” or some such in order to explicitly point out that whiel Darwin shaped some ideas, there are others that have moved well beyond anything he ever proposed.
Ah…
Thank you for the clarification/confirmation, Matt F.
I think the better question would be “Since fossils disprove Biblical creationism, why are there still people that think the world is 6,000 years old?”
Did you get a chance to listen to the radio show, O Nata Lux, either on the air or over computer podcast?
Mr. McFarland and his guest Mr. Morris didn’t really get into the topic as much as I had hoped that they would, but instead seemed more intent to sell Young Earth Christian Creationism and it’s websites/books for Christians that wanted a “good” source of scientific answers to research within. I was somewhat surprised that Mr.Morris only attended the show for the first half, instead of attending for the entire show. But then, considering how little Most Young Earth Christian Creationist have to present when actually trying to prove their beliefs on the topic of Science, perhaps I shouldn’t have been that surprised about it at all[shrugs shoulders with eyes closed]. Mr. Morris made an interesting statement implying that all of this evidence just fell into their laps which confirmed to them that the universe was very young[I'm guessing he means something under 50 thousand years], as opposed to what other scientist and most of the educated world believe, but he didn’t give us listeners any hints at what any of the evidence was….not that this had anything to do with fossils or evolution anyway. I guess one would have to visit the Institute for Creation website to try and find these evidences. Just click on said words above within the description of this show[if you have not already] and you’ll get right to it. It’s a fascinating read, and offers you the chance to deduce your own answer to your question, O Nata Lux. You see, they imply that only REAL Christians believe as they do, and that only REAL Christians will interpret science from the perspective of a Young Earth Christian, Biblical Literalist. They do not understand that scientific evidences can and should stand on their own despite whatever theological[or lack of]belief systems an observer/scientist may have. It makes as much sense as if they were claiming that…only someone with the faith of a Young Earth Christian Creationist can REALLY understand what’s on the Periodic Table, or what history REALLY says happened when Napoleon Bonaparte lost the battle at Waterloo, or what mathematics REALLY say that 10×10 is, if you get my drift, and yet they don’t seem to see the problems connected with this theological-based philosophy of theirs. In order to keep their faith as Christians, they have created a very special, alternate, version of reality to exist within, complete with reinvented, alternate versions of science and history.
What’s to be done about it? One could allow them their fantasies, were it not for the fact that they are trying so hard to spread their beliefs onto the ignorant youth of our age.
There will always be people like this in the world in some form or another. I believe that we are just too crazy as a species for good education alone to completely drive such belief systems into complete extinction, so I suggest that we use them as a learning tool and share their mistakes with others. What do you think, gentle readers?
To borrow an accidentally honest phrase from Paul, there will always be those who “re-right” history and science to fit their preconceived notions. The arc of history and science will leave them behind, no matter how hard they try to oppress all other notions but their own. Truth will out eventually.
[Smile]
Well, one would like to HOPE so, anyway. As long as all of the accurate information isn’t lost or disposed of.
It’s good to hear from you again and know that you’re still visiting, Kash.
Question for MattF: Do you believe in a global catastrophic flood (Gen. 6-8)? If so, what are the implications for you in interpreting the fossil record? I’m not looking to start a long discussion/argument. I’m truly interested in your answer since you claim to be a believer and trust the Bible.
I believe that Matt F. has affirmed in the past that he does not believe in the global catastrophic flood as portrayed exactly within the Noah’s Ark myth, but I may be wrong of course, as I am just basing this on his debates with other Christians who have tried to use things like The Cambrian Explosion and the Grand Canyon as evidences that proved that the Genesis Flood myth was based on an actual world wide flood and that the resulting loss of life produced the fossil records, which in term also confirmed that the Earth was under 20,000 years old. Hopefully he will be able to find the time to come here and answer you directly though[I wasn't trying to steal your thunder Matt F., I was just trying to be helpful.].
JD42: Question for MattF: Do you believe in a global catastrophic flood (Gen. 6-8)? If so, what are the implications for you in interpreting the fossil record? I’m not looking to start a long discussion/argument. I’m truly interested in your answer since you claim to be a believer and trust the Bible.
I’m sorry that I let this languish, JD42. I must have lost track of it. I certainly didn’t mean to ignore it.
Let me start off by saying that I believe Genesis 6-9. However, I also want to point out certain things before I sketch out why I think the young-Earth creationists have gotten it wrong.
One must remember that passages in Scripture are sometimes difficult to discern accurately. When Genesis was written, the entire Hebrew language had only about six thousand words (and the Old Testament uses an even smaller vocabulary than this). English has over a million. When we translate, often we must make educated guesses about what was truly meant.
I think that mistranslations of Genesis 6-9 (and traditions about how it should be understood since then) have given many the wrong understanding. When we look at the passage in question, several things pop out:
* The words translated “whole earth” or “all the earth” (kol eretz) are, by far, most often used in Scripture to mean “the entire land”, “the entire country”, or “all people”. (For example, a few chapters later, Abram is told to leave the eretz. He does not go to Mars, but he is counted as obeying God’s command.) As it turns out, Hebrew does have a word that, every time it is used, refers to the planet as a whole: tebel. It does not appear even once in the account. (Kol eretz only refers to the entire planet only 40 times out of 205 times that it appears, and even most of those are questionable; about half of these instances occur in Psalms and Isaiah.) In fact, the use of eretz in this passage seems to promote the idea that it’s meant to refer to “people” — it does so in Genesis 6:11, 6:12, and 9:13, for example.
* Genesis 8:5 and 8:9 give a clue that the words translated “all the earth” do not mean “the whole planet”. If it did, how could the tops of the mountains be visible in verse 5 and water be over the surface of “all the earth” in verse 9?
* Based on chromosomal studies, I believe it happened much earlier than the date young-Earth creationists assign.
* Psalm 104 — usually referred to as “the creation psalm” — is said to give deeper insight into early Genesis. Look at verse 9: “You set a boundary they [the waters] cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth.” Since this is an account of creation, is this referring to the fact that waters once covered the earth (until the creation of dry land), and that they would never do so again since the creation? Hardly ironclad, but it demonstrates that getting at a real meaning might require more digging.
* If it covered the whole Earth (and “receded” and was “dried by the wind”), where did all the water go? There are many other questions (from physics, chemistry, animal husbandry meteorology, ecology, geology, and so on) that need to be addressed if the flood is understood to be a global event.
* With the possible exception of Genesis 1-2:5, the entire Genesis account (through the Tower of Babel incident) focuses on local geography. All of the places mentioned are in the Mesopotamian flood plain. This strongly argues that eretz refers to something local; there is nothing in the context to indicate a shift in focus from local geography to a global perspective and back again.
* The text uses universal modifiers when universal modifiers cannot be literally applied. For example, we see that all flesh had become corrupted in 6:11, but Noah was a “righteous man, blameless in his time” several verses prior in 6:9. He promises the end of all flesh in 6:13, but the ark’s passengers were saved. If “earth” in this passage is meant to be global, and the water had dried up from the earth in 8:6-7, 13, and 14, did the oceans go away, too? (If not, why can we be selective about when we want it to refer to the entire planet and when we don’t?)
* Ararat is about 17,000 feet tall. Olive trees don’t grow much above five thousand feet. How did the dove find an olive branch? (Many Biblical scholars believe that the ark did not come to rest on Mt. Ararat, but in the region of Urartu.)
* 2 Peter 3:5-6 gives an interesting qualifier: “For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the land was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water” (emphasis mine). Why would he say “at that time”? How did it differ from the world of Peter’s day? There would be no reason to qualify it if the flood were global in extent.
* The Hebrew word har (in 7:19, 7:20, 8:4, and 8:5) occurs 649 times in the Old Testament, and is usually translated “hills”, “hill”, or “hill country”. In Genesis alone, it’s “hill” ten out of nineteen times (and four of the “mountain” translations are in the flood account). I don’t think we can tell on this passage alone that the word must have meant “mountain”; in every place where this word appears in Genesis (not just the flood account), the word can be translated without loss of accuracy. One might note that no mountain range is specifically mentioned. This does not mandate that the word must be “hill”, of course, but the idea is compelling and reveals how little we really understand the passage.
I can give more detail on any of these or answer questions if you wish. I can’t claim to have the complete picture, but I find some ideas telling. (I also do not want this to be taken as a limitation on God’s power. My focus here is not to determine what God can do, but what God did do.)
As far as John’s comments are concerned (post 9), “flood geology” turned into its own thing in the early nineteenth century. Very shortly after that, it was shown rather conclusively that the rock formations creationists traditionally attribute to the Noahic flood could not have been formed through floodwaters, and that evidence for a global flood is completely lacking. The creationists have yet to catch up.