The article below (from "A Symposium on Creation" Vols. 1-5 @ http://www.creationism.org/symposium/) is used by permission of Baker Books, a division of Baker Book House Company, copyright ©1968-1975. All rights to these materials are reserved. Materials are not be be distributed to other web locations for retrieval, published in other media, or mirrored at other sites without written permission from Baker Book House Company.
Creation: The Only Reasonable
Explanation of Natural Phenomena
by W. Hewitt Tier
From: "A Symposium on Creation"
(Vol. II), pg 134-151
©1970 - Baker Book House
W. HEWITT TIER
Mr. Tier was born in Southampton, England, in 1886 and was educated at Portsmouth and at Reading University College where he held the position of associate. He later served as an educator in science fields in schools in England and New Zealand, the latter place where he was head master.
Mr. Tier's interest in
creation and its evolutionary antithesis began at the age of 15, when the
theory of evolution disturbed his belief in the truth of the Bible. Intensive
and wide-ranging reading on the subject followed. This led to his deep
and profound conclusion as to the majesty of creation, with its superior
logic, and the falsity of the theory of evolution. His conclusions have
motivated the writing of several articles and pamphlets for the Evolution
Protest Movement and other publications. He has served the Evolution
Protest Movement (later renamed to: Creation Science Movement,
based in the U.K.) as a council member since 1956.
PART I - The Super-terrestrial
If the Bible is accepted to be a revelation from God about matters which concern mankind, but which do not come within the range of our finite powers of investigation and discovery: more precisely, if we believe that we are the subjects of a Supreme Being who is concerned for our present state and our eternal welfare, we shall find little difficulty in accepting the written statement by Moses, as God's mouthpiece, that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" together with the formal record of how the flora and fauna came into existence. Those who do not accept the truth of Genesis I are reminded by the Apostle Paul that "the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead" (Romans 1:20). This constitutes a challenge to human intelligence and reason which should be carefully noted, because it comes from a source which claims to transcend human reason, where this is necessary, for our fuller knowledge of God's purposes: e.g., Why should we expect divine mercy?
It is, no less, a challenge to true science as well as to that which the Bible calls "science so-called." The latter embraces conclusions based on incomplete or inadequate knowledge, imaginations, suppositions, and the like, which abound in the theory called Evolution. If the public were fully aware that so many of the statements by scientists are mere surmises, there might now be much to complain about. On the contrary, alas, these guesses are often presented as proven facts. We need only recall the case of the Piltdown Man, exposed within the last decade as a fraud. This is true also of the so-called Java Man, the Peking Man, and many other impositions on public credulity. These rash inventions are themselves evidence of the very shaky foundation of the theory they are seeking to uphold.
Extreme evolutionists often ridicule the idea of creation, and some are anxious to dismiss the Deity as a figment of the imagination. They presume to think that, given unlimited time, there is nothing that cannot be explained by the processes of nature. But not all their co-theorists are happy about such conclusions; nor are they all anti-God. Many Christians are very concerned to reconcile their religious beliefs with these supposed scientific facts and discoveries. These so-called Theistic Evolutionists imagine that the evidences of evolution are overwhelming. This is partly due to ignorance concerning natural phenomena; partly due to their inability to meet the scientist on his own ground; and, we must add, not less to the profundity of the many questions involved, some of which a lifetime of study could not solve. In truth, difficulties multiply as efforts are made to reconcile the Judao-Chris-tian revelation with the Theory of Evolution and the theory itself with the evidence presented by natural phenomena.
Before turning to the more interesting and positive evidences of creation, we will suggest, for the reader's consideration, one or two of these difficulties. First, if God can create either one or any number of single-celled animalcule with such innate powers of development and variation as would be necessary for the furnishing of the earth as we see it, what objection can there be to the idea of God directly creating the flora and fauna? Are we, in consequence, to credit these animalculae with the power to produce man "in the image and likeness of God?" If we think it impossible that God could have created man in this way by a direct act why credit Him with the even more inscrutable power necessary in order to create these microscopic amoeba and confer on them such powers as to confound human understanding?
We are faced with a further problem. If we allow that God has the power
to produce all the phenomena of nature by direct creation, both animate
and inanimate, what reason, do we imagine, constrained Him to confuse the
issue by relinquishing this mighty power and conferring it on the amoeba
which, therefore, by ordinary reasoning processes, should make it an object
of our worship? Of course, the non-theistic evolutionist regards it as
a matter of chance and, if it comes to the point, the amoeba itself must
exist by mere chance and be quite unaccountable in its existence.
We are told in Genesis I that God created the fauna, but we are not told that this was so with the flora. There is a notable passage in Genesis 2:4, 5, which reads:
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew.The suggestion here is that the terrestrial flora in all its variety was conceived in the mind of God before ever it was in the earth and was provided for, while the earth lasts, in the tiny seed from which the earth brought forth fruit in due time. The seed, under its appropriate conditions, produces the fully-developed plant. What God directly ordained transpires according to His will and provision. Evolutionists will find no support for their theory in these pronouncements.
Super-terrestrial Evidences of Creation
The earth is not by any means a self-sustaining body. Its internal heat, whatever its explanation or origin, has no power to warm its surface. Nor is its illumination a product of its own chemical action or energy of any kind. It is a dependent body in all its distinctive characteristics. It is inherently desolate apart from external influences which act upon it: notably the sun, whose beneficial influence is contingent on many precise and delicate conditions providentially provided and maintained.
This heavenly body, which is ninety-three million miles away (approx.)
from the earth, is at exactly the right distance to perform the countless
miracles advantageous to our planet and the life it bears. This cannot
be said of any other solar body. It is now recognized that none of the
other planets could sustain life as we know it, either because they are
too near the sun and, therefore, too hot, or too far away and much too
cold. The one other planet on which speculation suggested that some form
of intelligent life might exist has been ruled out. Gerard P. Kuiper, Director
of McDonald Observatory, Texas, has said:
Human life on Mars is entirely out of the question because of the severe night temperature and because there is not enough oxygen.Indeed, the amount of oxygen is infinitely small, while the night temperature is about -90° F. and only a little above freezing point in daytime, even at the equator.
Can it be that it is all a matter of chance that our planet, among those revolving around the sun, happened to be at the precise climatic distance for the successful production and maintenance of living things? If so, it was a chance that confounds all understanding. Think of all it involves in advantage to ourselves, namely, the scenic glories of hill and vale, seas and lakes, brooks and rivers, forests and wooded glens. Think also of the abundant vegetation, the beauty of the flowers, of seedtime and harvest, and the manifold fruits of the earth; all these are dependent upon a delicate balance of forces and conditions which appear the more miraculous the more we learn about them.
Many relationships existing between the earth and the sun are of vital
consequence. The latter is just the right size and the right distance away
in order to give and maintain its truly amazing service to our planet.
It provides light, power, warmth, and many other blessings, all in serviceable
quantities, subject only to terrestrial variations; such as latitude, elevation,
proximity to ocean, mountains or desert. It is the power of the sun which
provides the winds of the world and these, in turn, carry the rain clouds
over the land. Sir John Herschel, the astronomer, suggested what would
happen if the sun were suddenly extinguished:
In three days (72 hours, for there would be no days) - there would, in all probability, not be a vestige of animal or vegetable life on the globe —. The first 48 hours would suffice to precipitate every atom of moisture from the air in deluges of rain and piles of snow, and from that time there would set in a universal frost such as Siberia, or the highest peak in the Himalayas, never felt: a temperature of two and three hundred degrees below zero.
These are some of the more direct calculable effects of the sun's vital contribution to our existence. There are many others, ranging from the beneficial influence which we personally experience, to the mysterious chemical process induced by sunlight which occurs in vegetation. I refer, of course, to what is known as photosynthesis: a process by which a plant is enabled to build up in its chlorophyll cells, carbohydrates from the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and from the hydrogen of water in the soil.
Animals live on the organic food manufactured by the plants in this
way. It follows that all living creatures, either directly or indirectly,
not only depend on the sun for light and warmth, but in a miraculous way
for all the food they eat. This profound truth was revealed to Moses in
words which we can only now begin to understand. He wrote:
And God said, Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; and to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth on the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so (Genesis 1:29-30).
It may be argued that the Carnivora are flesh-eaters. Even so, were it not for vegetation, both they as well as every other living creature, would quickly die. The diet of the Carnivora comprises sheep, cattle, antelopes and lesser creatures which ultimately are vegetarians, in the main, themselves. The arresting thought is that this truth must have been revealed to Moses at a time when ravenous beasts were proliferating; so much so that at an even earlier date Nimrod became famous as a hunter. Shortly before Moses' death it is recorded in Deuteronomy 7:22, with reference to the advance of the Israelites into Canaan, that:
The Lord God shall put out those nations before thee little by little, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee.
Alternatively, the knowledge that no creature preyed upon another until after the Fall, was well known, but first recorded by Moses. It is not possible that any such idea could have been conceived or accepted at a time when beasts and birds of prey abounded, except in one or the other of these two ways.
Apart from the reflected light from the sun which the moon sheds upon our planet — adding a rare beauty to the night — it has other functions which have a beneficial influence on the earth. We refer to the ocean tides. These result from the differential gravitational attraction of the moon measured from the near and far sides of the earth, thus giving us high and low tides. Owing to its vastly greater distance away and despite its mass, its differential attraction is much less noticeable as regards the sun, but it is sufficient to cause Spring and Neap tides when these two heavenly bodies are in conjunction or in opposition, respectively.
As with the sun, it is the size and distance of the moon which makes it our good servant, for if the moon were only half its distance away, or if its size were doubled, the rise and fall of the tides would submerge and destroy all harbors in the world as they exist today. Many islands would be covered, together with all coastal plains, and the tidal waves would drive inland for great distances twice every day. The disastrous consequences can barely be imagined.
If the moon were much smaller, or further away, the almost tideless seas would lose their effectiveness in cleansing our harbors. This would apply also to narrow seas and converging coastlines, because a speedier flow of water helps to carry away impurities in heavily populated areas, and, incidentally, improves fishing prospects.
When we come to consider our own planet, it is not surprising to find that similar precise conditions are necessary for the initiation and maintenance of its present fruitful condition. It has been estimated that if the earth's diameter were increased by a little over one-sixth, the weight of the atmosphere would be doubled. With twice as much oxygen, scientists tell us, the amount of water would be greatly increased, so that the surface of the planet would be covered with an ocean.
W. J. Humphries, formerly with the United States Weather Bureau, told
the American Meteorological Society that if the average temperature of
the earth were raised by two or three degrees:
you could bid good-bye to all the big cities of the earth.
The glaciers and polar ice would melt and that in turn would raise the ocean level by 150 feet. This would inundate hundreds of thousands of square miles of our most fertile lands. Or, if the average mean temperature were only a few degrees colder than now, the great increase in ice and snow in the low latitudes and on the more elevated land would rob the oceans of much of their water. This, again, would result in a greatly decreased rainfall and consequent extension of desert lands, giving a poor prospect for our food supplies. So little, it would seem, is necessary to put fear into the hearts of men, but the delicate balance is preserved by divine decree:
Who shut up the sea with doors - ? Who, but the great Creator, can say to the oceans: Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further; and here shalt thy proud waves be stayed (Job 38:8, 11).
Adding up these few of the precise conditions concerning the earth, sun and moon, which are found to be necessary for the maintenance of living creatures on our planet, the possibility that all these happy conjunctions happened by mere chance is so remote as to invite immediate rejection. In arriving at this conclusion, we have taken the widest view of the matter. We propose in Part 2 to take a much closer and more restricted viewpoint.
Part II - Instincts
The super-terrestrial evidences of a divine Providence supplying the conditions necessary for our terrestrial existence, cannot be divorced from the idea of Creation. It is certainly beyond the capabilities of our scientists to explain how the sun, moon and earth came to be so intimately and advantageously associated, yet very many are intent on rejecting the Biblical solution of the problem. A super-human Providence is everywhere in evidence and, where this exists, intelligent purpose cannot be denied, nor can initial creation be disallowed.
Super-terrestrial evidence of creation is by no means all the witness thereto that exists. There is far more at hand in terrestrial phenomena: in the fauna and flora which abound on our planet. In this short study we are concentrating on the phenomenon of Instincts more particularly as seen in the behavior of insects. These creatures comprise some of the smallest observable by the naked eye and, therefore, come within the powers of observation of all interested in their examination, without incurring either perils or discomforts.
It is characteristic of instinctive acts that they do not need thought
and are never the product thereof. Thought begins when the creature is
able, however unconsciously, to hesitate between two or more possibilities,
to ponder whether to do or not to do. If you kill an ant near its nest,
other ants will flock to their own slaughter in obedience to an instinctive
urge, which cannot be varied whatever the circumstances. Initially, the
life of an infant child is equally instinctive, but the purpose of its
terrestrial existence, unlike that of the ant, is not wholly predetermined,
but is shaped by processes of thought as life progresses, and by the varied
accumulated thought of many generations. To this we must add the influence
of spiritual powers on the mind or soul, but that is another matter.
In its widest connotation, instinct covers reflex actions, such as blinking the eyes in bright light, or automatically straightening the leg when muscles cramp. All such are spontaneous reactions and are neither taught nor acquired. They are of two kinds. The first concerns the preservation of the individual or species. The second, and more important, concerns the purpose of the creature's existence. It is the latter which presents the most powerful argument against the theory of Evolution. Initially, we would say, that chance and purpose are contradictory ideas. A God of chance is a misnomer, and chance, with no God, is another word for chaos.
We can dismiss the first kind with only a brief comment because of its indecisiveness as far as the theory of Evolution is concerned. It does not prove anything to point out the bare fact that a squirrel instinctively climbs a tree when danger threatens, or that a calf, or piglet, turns instinctively to its dam for sustenance. It would be just as impossible to prove that these were very necessary acts, for they were always so, and in the same pattern, as it would be to disprove that they had not been acquired through long and undefined stages.
It is when the creature's reactions are both complex and purposeful
that the theory of Evolution proves completely inadequate. No biologist
can give a satisfactory explanation, or any explanation at all, of the
fine-spun masterpieces of the mindless garden spider; or that of its equally
incomprehensible body structure. But the purpose of its web and the need
for it to counteract the enormous proliferation of flies and other insect
population is very obvious. We might consider another puzzle: how did the
spider exist while it invented its truly marvelous and intricate web with
the brain it appears never to have possessed? The manufacture of the fiber
would suggest another problem. The most reasonable answer is that an intelligence
far greater than we can imagine not only conceived the idea, but also provided
the instrument for its execution in the humble spider. Writing recently
in the Scientific American on Spiders' Webs, Peter Wilt stated:
Every species of spider makes its own kind of web. . . . When a baby spider spins its first web, even if it has never seen a web before, it makes one just like its forebears, but on a smaller scale.
We quote this because it is possible, with patient observation over a period, to confirm the truth of this statement. Yet proof is hardly necessary, for it is impossible to believe that such skill and proficiency could be acquired in the short span of a spider's life.
Expertness of Instinct
Complex and purposeful instincts do not appear as abnormalities or isolated happenings; they are to be found whenever mind, or the ability to think, is lacking. For examples we need only to refer also to the bee and the ant, or to such lesser known marvels as the pronuba moth, or fiddler crab, whose complex behavior is wholly instinctive, as has been proved by experiment. No less automatic is the action of the mindless killer-plants which devour insects. Indeed, the number of living creatures, whose skills are inexplicable by any scientific theory, is beyond enumeration.
It is conceivable that chance might produce one orderly freak which would, apparently, deny its parentage, but when these wonders appear in thousands and in great variety, chance and evolution are impossible explanations.
As indicated, pure instinct occurs where the ability to think is inoperative or non-existent. In fact the two are in inverse ratio. It is as though, where the power of mind does not exist, or is insufficient, God supplied all that is necessary for the perfection of His design in the fulfillment of His purpose. Where there is a complete absence of discernible thought, instinctive acts generally have an intricacy in their execution, and a rigidity in their repetition, which diminish rapidly as the brain, where it exists, begins to function, and, lastly, a perfection in accomplishment which is innate. Compare, for instance, the complex performance of the humble bee from its emergent state, with that of the horse or dog which, having brains, nevertheless, need training if their comparatively useless instincts are to be of service to their master, man. Seemingly, neither the wild horse, nor the Australian dingo, serve any useful purpose in their natural habitat.
The hiatus between the purely instinctive creature and the most intelligent is still more striking. Man, the God-ordained master of every terrestrial creature, is even more helpless at his birth and must be trained in order that he may perform some of the simplest acts of which he is capable. While this is an obvious fact of human life, it is no less true that there appears to be no limit to what he can achieve in the terrestrial sphere and now even far beyond it. The heights and depths of his being, which are barely concealed in childhood, are characterised by an instinctive deviation towards greater or lesser evil as the mind develops, and to transcendent possibilities outside himself when in direct contact with his Creator, through Jesus Christ.
On this point Konrad Lorenz, that great authority on animal behavior,
in his recent book On Aggression (1965), refers to man's distortion
of his own aggressive instincts in the production of weapons for the destruction
of his own species and adds:
If the phrase Homo sapiens is not to prove in the end a bad joke, the same energies that drive our animal instincts, must be tapped in a subconscious way, to control them. This can, in theory, be done by consciously setting up the right cultural pressures and values; in time these may become, by natural selection, as ingrained as the marvelous instinctive rituals of the animal world.
Reaction to this conclusion may well be, "What a hopeless prospect." Man cannot create an instinct, nor an abiding selection for his species. He has been trying to do something of the kind from time immemorial and the confusion is plain for all to see. Dr. Lorenz wisely prefaces his suggestion with the words "in theory." We may return to the subject a little later.
The Rigidity of Pure Instinct
The contrast between inherent skills, as observed particularly in insects, and those which are acquired, is in the former's unchangeable nature. If all the means and abilities are provided for the automatic fulfillment of a creature's function in life, then the bestowal of mind is unnecessary. This we judge is true of insects. For there is nowhere any evidence that instinctive skills are preceded by gradation of inferior skill. Every ant, every bee, every spider fulfills its life purpose with exactitude. There are no bunglers or semi-skilled insects. A purely instinctive creature cannot transcend its normal behavior. It cannot invent new ways of doing its job.
Unintentionally, perhaps, Divine over-ruling in natural phenomena is
suggested by Irson Barnes, late President of the Audubon Society, Washington,
D.C., founded to commemorate the great American naturalist of that name.
Each animal is chained ... to a distinctive pattern of behavior. . . . Thus a hawk is powerless to alter its tastes or its behavior. This dictate of nature asserts that each form of life shall fulfil its destiny, that no chaos of individual choices shall destroy nature's balance. . . . Each form of life has its essential role in the community.What Dr. Barnes does not explain, given this fixity of behavior in instinctive creatures, is from whence comes the evident purpose of each. Also, why must we predicate an ordered universe rather than a chaotic one? In human affairs we find much chaos and if "unintelligent" nature reveals a more orderly and purposeful arrangement it can only be because Someone, superhuman, cares about it — Someone with vastly greater intelligence than our own.
Instinct and Feeling
To write about instinct without relating it to feeling might well present an inadequate picture. But in the space available this can only be done, relative to the theory of Evolution, very briefly indeed.
Feeling is of two kinds: physical and emotional. The first has no relevance
to our purpose. We are concerned with whether purely instinctive creatures
have emotional experiences. A statement by Dr. Timbergen in his Study of
Instincts (p. 25) has an indirect bearing on this problem. He writes:
An animal does not react to all the changes in environment which its sense organs receive, but to only a small part of them. This is a basic property of its behavior.
In effect, however, this is a very general statement and is applicable, in measure, to every living creature and even to ourselves. It certainly does not distinguish between purely instinctive creatures (insects) and those endowed with a measure of mind. What the author implies is that instinct knows, or recognizes, only those environments which are either agreeable or hostile. Otherwise, it is truly blind. True instinct can only be a permanent characteristic where mind does not exist, or where it exists, as in infants, it is only until the thinking faculties begin to function. Emotional feeling does not arise as a consequence of a purely instinctive reaction. This has been substantiated by an interesting experiment with an ant taken from a particular nest. In view of the fact that stranger ants from elsewhere found trespassing are attacked and destroyed, this ant was smeared with the juice of a foreign ant and then allowed to return to its own nest. It was very quickly attacked and killed by its own mess-mates because the scent was different. This effect was automatic, and comes within the range of instinctive reactions to hostile environments.
Where there is mind there is also a degree of ability, however slight, to assess the circumstances, or consequences of an event, and it is at this point that emotion is possible. It may be seen in the effect of some deprivation, as when a dog whines because of the absence of its master. This is off-set by tail-wagging and various antics expressing joy at its master's return. Emotional effects of one kind and another are common to many animals, but always in such cases there is some evidence of the working of mind because there is variation in the responses to meet particular cases. For example, you may tease a domestic cat until it seizes your hand or fist with claws and teeth. If you then call its name gently and reprovingly it may then gradually release its hold. This is a common experience. As the compass of the mind increases, so emotional responses become more complex and sometimes more profound and longer lasting. This especially applies to human beings, whose reasonable control over their emotions is not only a very necessary asset, but is also an evidence of their superiority over the beasts.
Emotion would, therefore, appear to be an evidence of the existence of mind and thought, but not necessarily of reasoned thought. If this exercise is the means by which we are to attain perfection, as suggested by Dr. Lorenz, quoted earlier, we are presented with a rather depressing possibility. The only terrestrial creatures to function perfectly within their capabilities are insects, of which no evidence exists that they possess minds. If man could so fashion himself by "right cultural pressures and values" these might, as I understand Dr. Lorenz, result in his "attaining to the marvelous instinctive rituals of the animal world" or, more correctly, of the insect world. So we may conclude from the foregoing that human perfection can be reached when man becomes an automaton, and mind, having fulfilled its purpose, ceases to function.
On a more optimistic note we might consider how far our minds or souls are responsible for our imperfections. We have minds, or centers of control, which are able to misuse or abuse our instincts, or to transcend them. In this sense our minds resemble a form of local government, and this is our privileged endowment. Such acts as self-indulgence, revenge, immorality and the like contradict the essential nature of true instinct, which is to serve an over-all purpose. Does not this suggest a descent from a nobler condition of existence which was then in harmony with our superior gifts?
Part III - Examples
No evidence, in any shape or form, exists as to how insects came by the necessary tools for the accomplishment of their object in life. The existence of these purposes is no less inexplicable, and the fact that they do exist, undeniable. Even a child can understand, in measure, the work done by the humble worm, or the common bee, and yet both the purpose and their specialized equipment defy scientific explanation. We are faced with the same great difficulties when endeavoring to account for the appearance of any other particular creature. We propose, therefore, to consider a few examples.
There are very many creatures whose existence and unique characteristics challenge explanation of the precise kind which is never forthcoming and, in most cases, never attempted. It is possible to feel some sympathy for the hard-baked evolutionist in his endeavors to meet the difficulties which the theory of evolution presents. Unless supported by concrete evidence, such as might be expected from the examination of fossil-bearing strata, even the plea of unlimited time becomes merely a smoke screen to cover up human ignorance where the power of God transcends human understanding. On the other hand, reasonable evidence in support of the Biblical account of how all things came into existence by direct acts of God multiply as we delve into the facts and mysteries of terrestrial life.
Consider first one of our commonest insects, the bee. It is not proposed here to enlarge upon the many marvels involved in the life of this insect, but to confine myself to one matter. In an article by Jean George, which appeared in the Reader's Digest, 1966, it is explained how some bees in a hive are nurses whose task is to feed the queen bee and the larvae. The milk for this purpose is formed by special glands in the nurse bee's head. Other bees are provided with a different kind of chemical laboratory which turns honey into beeswax. These chemical factories are unfailing. It is not magic which enables some workers to provide "bee-milk" and others "beeswax." The secret is hidden in the infinitesimal genes of the bee. If we could possibly allow that a lucky chance enabled the bee to evolve along a particular line in order to produce honey, it remains quite impossible for the evolutionist to explain the purposeful co-ordination in the production of bee-milk and beeswax from the same type of insect, or the maintenance of a correct proportion of each type. The failure of either would upset the whole colony and quickly lead to its extinction, but the productions do not fail — and that is a miracle. The overall evidence of design and balance in nature is one of the strongest arguments in favor of Creation by God.
Another common insect is the butterfly. Its tongue is as long as its body. Butterflies live on nectar which is concealed in deep pockets of flowers. To reach their necessary food they must unroll their tongues and thrust them far down into these recesses. It is quite useless to pretend that these tongues which are, in fact, sucking tubes have developed over long ages to meet an urgent need. The question immediately arises as to how those insects could possibly have survived during the very long period in which the supposed development was taking place. We are faced with another pertinent question: If the butterflies could live through even a thousand butterfly generations during the development period, why need they bother to develop so delicate an instrument? If this was really true, one could only exclaim, what persistence! what determination! what foresight! for an end so deeply concealed in the heart of a flower!
The same argument can be applied to the elephant's trunk. If it was not a part of the original animal eating and drinking must still have been possible without the trunk, and, therefore, why develop this awkward appendage? The answer surely is that the animal always had a trunk. There is no such animal existing with half a trunk, and fossil evidence is completely lacking of such a freak.
Fishes that Fish
The following is a quote from a pamphlet entitled Partnership: Planned
or Accidental? by T. W. Carron:
Walking by the seashore recently, I watched an angler casting his line into the sea. It set up a train of thought. The fish he eventually caught fell a victim to the man's pre-arranging and interconnecting intelligence. The poor fish could not know that the tasty morsel he saw hid a fatal hook by which it would be hauled up out of its native element to provide a meal for the fisherman. Then I recalled that there are fish, which themselves fish with rod and line, so that thus man was not the first angler. There are, in fact, a number of species of Angling fishes. The Oceanic Angler-fish (Gigantactus macronema) has a line four times the length of its body with an enticing "bait" at the end. Some species actually have a rod. Lasiognathus has one, and the line extends beyond the "bait" ending in a triangle of hooks. This fish's mouth is peculiarly contrived, too, to deal with the catch. The Sea Devils, another group of Angler fish, live in the middle of the depths of the ocean where there is little or no light. In these the female fish, moving about in the darkness, depend upon a luminous lure. The males of this group are smaller — mere hangers-on — attached to the female, sometimes literally. Here then is the "compleat angler." Was it its own intelligence which taught the Angler fish to catch its fellow denizens of the deep? Did it, before it became an angler, think up the complex idea of growing a rod and line with a "bait" and hooks on the end, and then begin to grow these appendages? Obviously nonsense! But is the Darwinian "explanation" any more sensible? Could chance variations even over millions of years, "guided" by Natural Selection and the struggle to survive, produce a complicated mechanism like this? In a word, did the Angler fishes evolve, or were they created? I'm asking you.
The Moth and the Yucca Plant
The Yucca plant grows in the desert and has an attractive flower. The circumstances of its survival would suggest that it was a hardy plant, while the white lily-like flowers, protected by clusters of sharp sword-like leaves, might suggest that the plant was rejoicing in its independence. But this is far from the truth. Its very existence depends upon the activities of a tiny white moth, called Pronuba. During the day this pronuba moth hides underground. When night comes it shows itself and flaps around but never eats anything. The Yucca buds open at nightfall and bursts into flower and on certain nights give forth a strong fragrance. It is at this precise moment that the Pronuba moth comes forth from its cocoon beneath the sand and, attracted by the scent from the flowers, flies to its only supply of food — the seeds of the Yucca plant. It goes to the top of the stamens of the nearest flower and scrapes together a wad of pollen and, carrying a big load in its jaws and tentacles, flies to another Yucca plant. It goes backward to the bottom of the flower, pierces a hole with its egg-laying needle, and lays its eggs among the seed cells at the base of the pistil where there is a cavity just the right size to take the load of pollen. The moth stuffs this in and pads it in so as to ensure that the pollen tubes will do their job and fertilize the seeds where it has laid its eggs. The mother moth has thus "planned" ahead and "deliberately" bred the plants so that her offspring will have a supply of food where they are born. The eggs are ready to hatch when the seeds are about ripe, so when the larvae (caterpillars) emerge they have an ample supply of delicious food at hand. They eat their fill of seeds, grow and cut a hole in the pod, lowering themselves to the ground by spinning a silken thread. The mother moth never eats — all she does is lay eggs, pollinate the Yucca plant and then die. A remarkable part of the whole business is that the babies eat only about a fifth of the seeds in the pod, which allows the rest of the seeds to mature and the plant to continue.
The explanation of this mysterious partnership is anyone's guess. Until
someone can account for the whole process it would be foolish to deny that
it is an evidence of God's own handiwork. The catalog of nature's wonders
could be extended to hundreds of examples which mock the theory of Evolution
and glorify the Creator. So we return to the words of Paul:
The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead.
For further information or to contact Baker Books regarding their other fine publications, click below:
Go to "A Symposium on Creation" Vols. 1-6 Go to Main Page of: www.creationism.org