After taking a break from my Evolution and Me series, I've decided to resume with this post by considering a trifle. The interesting thing about this desert is all those layers – they all tell a story. My mom, for example, might make a trifle as follows: first at the bottom of the bowl, add a layer of finger biscuits or sponge cake. Next add a layer of custard, then fruit, then jam, then mince. Finally, top it all off with some whipped cream (yum!)
Next time you sit down, ready to enjoy this desert, look at the various layers and ponder the question: which layer was placed down first? It only seems logical that the bottom most layer in the above example (i.e., the finger biscuits) was first, followed by every consecutive layer. The uppermost layer, the whipped cream in this case, is logically the youngest layer of the lot. If you understand this, then you understand what geologists call the Principle of Superposition: that any layer must be older than the one above it.
Long before Charles Darwin published On The Origin of Species, geologists noticed that the Earth's rock is structured in much the same way, into distinct layers, or strata. And interestingly enough, most strata contain their own distinct fossils of living organisms now long extinct. But what is even more interesting is that these fossils, when taken as a whole, tell a very perplexing story.
Increase in complexity
One element of this story is that the very earliest layers contain the remains of simple creatures, and as you work your way up to the upper layers, fossil remains generally become more complex in structure. If you accept the Principle of Superposition, you would logically conclude that simple creatures were placed down first, followed by more complex creatures. One would have to ask why complex creatures are absent in the oldest layers.
Observed linkages?
But most interestingly, fossils do not appear randomly across various layers. They seem, in many instances, to follow a pattern that suggests that fossils between layers are linked in some way. We often observe that the characteristics of newer fossils seem to be modified forms of earlier fossils. How do we explain this?
If we look at these, and many other, patterns in the fossil record, one is left pondering why we observe what we observe. I believe that evolution is the best idea that we have come up with that can make adequate sense of these patterns.
In my next post, I will focus on some of these observed linkages, examples of what palaeontologists refer to as transitional fossils.
Next post: A long line of photographs
Return to the table of contents for 'Evolution and Me'
21 comments:
Fascinating! But I would rather have a shot at that trifle. Boy, does it look good or what?
I believe this is one of the best "data" (if that's the best word?) for the evolution theory: the fossil strata record.
Mainly because it is falsifiable. If we one day find a fossil clearly anachronistically out of place, the theory goes to pot. Which is the marvelous thing of science. Being able to face that, and accept the data for what it says as it's found.
Never heard of a trifle before now though I must say...
Yeah, It is kind of strange how not even one dinosaur made it up to the same depth in the layer as say, mammoths. So I guess there goes the young earth theory and that we walked among dino's.
Kevin,
Thanks for highlighting one of the more critical factors considered in determining the age of the earth and "progession" of life on earth. As a young earth creationist, I of course have a different understanding of the fossil record and geological strata. Typically, the YEC position is not represented very well because some of its more outspoken proponents are some of the most ill-informed people when it comes to the natural sciences. If you're interested in a good summary (and quick read) of this position widely held in the Christian community, I'd recommend the book "Old Earth Creationism on Trial" by Tim Chaffey and Jason Lisle. It's technically written to address Christians (old-earth creationists, as the title suggests), but it does a good job of identifying erroneous starting assumptions which have long been attached to popular fossil record interpretations, such as the one you've suggested here.
phil
Hi Phil
Hope you are well, and thanks for the comment. Do you perhaps know of an internet page where they have posted information on their understanding of the fossil record? I'm very interested to take a look, and I might even link to it from my blog.
Or maybe you can write up, in this comment section, the main points of their explanation of what we observe in the fossil record.
All the best
Kevin
Hi again Kevin,
I don't know off-hand of an online link to the info-- I read it straight from the book-- but I'll send you a link if I can find it, or try to summarize some of the points myself if time allows. On a related note, there is a new article (link below) featured in Answers in Genesis which addresses issues concerning what we should expect to find in sedimentary deposits in the geological strata. I haven't spent much time on it (just a quick read), but it seems relevant to your post.
phil
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n2/folded-not-fractured
Hi Phil
Thanks a lot for the link. I will follow it up.
All the best
Kevin
Hi Phil
I've taken a read of that article, and find it extremely interesting. I don't think the Flood theory is in conflict with the Principle of Superposition. It doesn't matter if the layers were deposited over millions of years or just over one year, we can still agree that any layer is younger than those layers that appear below it.
The major contention, I think, is over the time it took for the layers to be deposited, and this is where I would err on the side of old-earth theorists. Although the article provides an alternative theory to why we observe layers (i.e., they were deposited during the Flood), it don't provide testable explanations for why we see the specific patterns I covered in my article. If the Flood did deposit all the layers in just a year, wouldn't we see a more random distribution of fossils (e.g., human fossils mixed up with dinosaurs, etc)? What mechanism does the creationist appeal to in order to explain why we observe fossils, that are similar to each other, appearing in layers that are close together?
I am probably ignorant of the current work done by Flood geologists, but at the moment my own view is that there various observations that the Flood theory doesn't yet explain very well, some of which I've covered in this blog entry.
Kevin,
Thanks again for taking time to read and respond. Rest assured I am learning much through our interactions!
I agree with you in that there is no contention between the biblical flood account and the general principle of superposition-- length of time is indeed what is in question.
You also made an important observation when you stated that alternative theories "don't provide testable explanations for why we see the specific patterns I covered in my article." However, if by "testable explanations," you mean recreating the precise conditions which would have been present at the time, your statement really is true of any theory regarding origins. What we can do for any theory, however, is hypothesis testing (asking what we would expect to observe today if a certain theory were true). Hopefully, the above-linked article sheds some light on the strength of certain aspects of the creation/flood theory when scrutinized according to hypothesis testing, as well as some examples of how the old-earth position may be considered falsifiable by many scientists.
You also asked, "If the Flood did deposit all the layers in just a year, wouldn't we see a more random distribution of fossils (e.g., human fossils mixed up with dinosaurs, etc)?" Not necessarily. The first article linked below (also from Answers in Genesis) hopefully will clarify some of the reasons why what we observe in the fossil record is perfectly consistent with the biblical flood account-- in fact, it specifically focuses on the human-dinosaur fossil issue. The second link below is a related issue which you also may find interesting. Evolutionists and old-earthers are largely baffled about how to understand the discovery of preserved T-Rex soft tissue, but this finding represents many such discoveries which I believe are consistent with the events described in Genesis. Both articles also shed light on how many scientists (both religious and non-religious) tend to interpret evidences in light of their starting assumptions much more than they realize.
phil
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/human-and-dino-fossils-together
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/human-and-dino-fossils-together
Sorry, I copied the first link twice in my above post. The second link is here.
phil
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna/?searchterm=schweitzer
Hi Phil
Thanks for those links. You’ve definitely given me some interesting stuff, and food for thought.
With regards to the first article on why we don’t see human fossils with dinosaur fossils. Basically, if I read the article correctly, the argument is that it is possible that human fossils from the Flood coexist in the geological record with dinosaur fossils, but we haven’t yet found them.
I could be wrong, but is this not an appeal to ignorance? UFO believers might use the same argument to explain why we haven’t found evidence in the fossil or archaeological records of alien visitations to ancient civilizations. “Well, they did visit us,” they might argue, “but we haven’t found evidence yet because the aliens were clever enough not to leave too many any traces of their visit.” If you argue from what we haven’t discovered rather than from what we have discovered, you can argue for any kind of crazy belief, because such line of reasoning doesn’t lend any validity to the position being argued for.
In other words, the article doesn’t provide any physical evidence, but only explanations for why we don’t observe what we should observe in the fossil record if the Flood theory is true. It’s okay to provide explanations, but all of these only make sense if you already believe that the Flood occurred. For example, they argue that pre-Flood population counts were very low, but the only source for such reasoning is from the Bible. Is this not a form of circular reasoning? The point of Answers in Genesis is to prove the Bible true, but in the end they appeal to the Bible in an attempt to ‘save’ the Flood theory.
Also, such a pattern doesn’t apply only to humans. Why don’t we find trilobites in the upper layers; why are angiosperms missing from the lower layers where we find gymnosperms, etc. I grant that it is possible that humans and dinosaurs lived together, but I find it more rational to provincially base my beliefs on what has been discovered, rather than on what has not been discovered.
The second article is also interesting, but even if organic material was found, this does not necessarily mean that the fossil in which it was found is recent. The rock in which it was found was dated as being millions of years old, by 86 separate chemical analyses.
Thanks for your thoughts on those articles, Kevin. I understand your reasoning about an "argument from silence," and the comparison to UFO believers is a good analogy. However, I don't think that discredits the article from providing rational and logical explanations about why what we know about the geological record reflects what it does. As the previous article I had linked to showed, there are also numerous findings which DO support a young earth position over an old-earth one. The main point of difference, as we have both alluded to, regards what one's starting assumptions are. Since the Christian's starting assumptions are the existence of God and the reliability of the biblical record, it makes sense to interpret evidences in light of these assumptions. As an illustration, we Americans assume an American Revolutionary War occurred in the 1700's even though none of us here today were alive to witness it. Why do we believe such an event occurred? Because we believe we have sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate such a belief. Therefore, discoveries on past battlefields are interpreted in light of what we already assummed had occurred there. On the other hand, the old-earther interprets evidence (and yes, even lack of evidence) in light of their starting assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism, which I believe are unreliable foundations. I strongly recommend checking out Chaffey and Lisle's book for a good, thorough explanation of why this is so.
phil
Lui,
I thank you for the great amount of thought and detail you put into your above comments; you obviously feel very strongly about this-- but, you are simply mistaken on many of your facts, beginning with the statement that "This is something that virtually every geologist is unequivocal about." There is a considerable amount of debate, even among secular geologists, concering whether what is observed in the strata are the result of billions of years, certain cataclysmic events (like a universal flood), or some combination of the two. To give the impression that there is an intelligent professional consensus about these matters is misleading. Your statement, "Real geologists simply don't pay any attention to YEC" is also simply untrue, because there are plenty of "real" (meaning professional level) geologists who do. Perhaps you mean there are no geologists you agree with who pay attention to YEC? There are many other theories which present strong alternate interpretations of the evidences you used above to dimiss YEC, and to simply discredit them by calling them "fake geologists" or something similar is an insufficient argument.
phil
Lui,
You brought up an important related issue here: the intentional suppression of YEC research from the peer-reviewed literature. One reason why this position is not, as you call it, "mainstream" has a lot to do with what a secularly-minded group of individuals chooses to censor and suppress. The outcome we have witnessed is what anyone who believes in the bible should expect (Rom. 1:18b). I don't look for truth in "mainstream" science (or mainstream anything), but in those who operate from consistent and reliable foundational viewpoints.
phil
Hi Phil
The main point of difference, as we have both alluded to, regards what one's starting assumptions are.
Thanks again for your thoughts. A Christian friend of mine and I had a discussion once on similar matters, and at the end of some friendly debate he also argued that it all boils down to what our starting assumptions are. I appreciate and understand this argument, but it seems as if creationists use it too often, as if to say: “well, the arguments and evidence don’t really matter at the end of the day, because whether you accept old earth or young earth theories is based on what assumptions you hold as an individual”.
I admit that, in order to accept any kind of theory or idea, we have to start out with some (maybe unproven) assumptions about how the world works, but I would argue that differing worldviews are not equal in validity because of this fact. All that one has to ask is: which idea has the least unproved assumptions?
To accept Flood theory, I have to accept the following (I believe unsupported) assumptions, that: (1) there is a supernatural realm, (2) a supernatural God exists, (3) this God is the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible, (4) this God was the creator, and (5) miraculous creation events – where God makes thing pop into existence out of nothing – can occur.
In order for me to accept old earth theory, all I have to accept are the assumptions that (1) we live in a natural world with observable and understandable natural processes (e.g., the slow processes of erosion and continental drift), and (2) that the nature of these processes was no different in the past.
The theory with the most assumptions has a higher probability of being incorrect, so it only seems logical to approach a problem first with a worldview that has the least number of assumptions; in this case naturalism.
After all, almost all of us are naturalists when solving everyday problems. If your computer doesn’t work you automatically suppose a naturalistic explanation, not a supernatural one. I don’t see why we should approach the topic of evolution or the age of the earth any differently.
Great post! Helps to strengthen my faith in evolution. Easy and fun to read.
Excellent points, Kevin! Actually, two books that I previously referenced address these issues very well. You state that 5 assumptions are required to accept the flood theory, and Winfried Corduan's "No Doubt About It," does an excellent job of systematically explaining why all five are not only appropriate, but also are the most logical assumptions to hold (I'm not certain, but he may even address them in the same order you did). Also, Chaffey & Lisle's "Old Earth Creationism on Trial" addresses why the two "old earth" assumptions you mentioned (naturalism and uniformitarianism) are either faulty (in some cases) or actually are contingent upon biblical principles (in other cases, though of course secularists don't usually realize they are borrowing their logic from biblical principles).
I don't believe the question we should ask is "which idea has the least unproved assumptions?" but rather, "which assumptions are the most logical ones to hold onto?"
I know a lot of books get recommended in this comments section, and there's no way we can read them all, but I hope at some point you might find time to give one of these a read.
phil
I would like to interrupt both of your discussion to say that though I am an atheist, I have yet to find a very satisfying and simple-to-understand answer on why it is possible to dig up dinosaur bones that still have fleshy parts in them. This subject was mentioned by phil in one of his earlier comments in this post.
Kevin, if you have written on this before or know of any good link to this subject, please let me know.
Thanks for your answer Lui, just that anything that has lasted at least 65million years really staggers my imagination.
Not that it's impossible, though.
Lui,
I understand how peer review works as a filtering system, but what has been demonstrated by rejection of YEC and, to a large degree, intelligent design, is not a reflection of limiting the spread of poorly conducted science, but rather the a priori dismissal of a philosophically viable worldview which has a consistent rationale for interpretation of evidences. It is one's worldview which determines how one conducts science, not the other way around. In that regard, I am not inconsistent if I believe in biblical presuppositions and, at the same time, "still utilise the fruits of modern science." Science is not the enemy, just faulty logic and unmerited prejudice against legitimate worldviews.
phil
Lui,
Regarding my "argument to corroborate" belief in God in general as a philosophically viable worldview, see my comments in Kevin's previous post "The birth of a snowflake" and the discussion that followed. Regarding usage of and reliance on the Bible in particular, our understanding and acceptance of historical records underscores the reason why an a priroi dismissal of biblcal claims is unjustified (also check out Corduan's book which I referenced above).
phil
Post a Comment