Basic HTML Version
attempt to construct the chain of
evolution. But without proven
success. There are just too many
missing links. Reporting on the
gaps, science writers for
News–
week
commented: " ln the fossil
record, missing links are the rule:
the story of Iife is as disjointed as
a silent newsreel, in which species
succeed on another as abruptly as
Balkan prime ministers. The
more scientists have searched for
the transitional forms between
species, the more they have been
frustrated"
(Newsweek,
Novem–
ber 3, 1980).
Hence the disillusionment with
Darwin's ideas.
Still Searching
The search now being undertaken
by many scientists is for a new
theory of evolution to replace that
of Charles Darwin. A very prom–
ising replacement is a theory that
has gained prominence in just the
last few years.
It
is called punc–
tuationalism.
Rather than a slow but steady
series of changes through eons of
time, punctuationalism would
have life forms changing very lit–
tle for lengthy periods and sud–
denly making a significant spo–
radic and spasmodic evolutionary
leap. The burst of activity would
be followed by another period of
inactivity. Missing links would no
longer be a problem, since transi–
tional life forms would not be
needed. But by what mechanism
would such quantum leaps oc–
cur?-chance mutations per–
haps?
When 160 of the world's most
eminent paleontologists, anato–
mists, evolutionary geneticists
and developmental biologists met
in Chicago Jast October, the
majority of them favored sorne
form of punctuationalism. But
there is sharp contention concern–
ing details. The new theory poses
many difficult questions. Mean–
while there are sorne scientists
who still refuse to abandon Dar–
win's concept.
And so the scientific commu–
nity is in disagreement as to how
various life forms carne to be.
February 1981
But it is remarkable that in all
the discussion going on, in all
the searching for alternate expla–
nations, there is no move among
evolutionary scientists to recon–
sider whether the biblical record
of how God created the different
life forms might be accurate
after all . There is no indication
that it even enters into serious
discussion. lnvestigation of that
possibility is out of tbe question
in the mainstream of science.
The biblical record doesn't
need any missing links.
It
fits the
fossil evidence that various spe–
cies carne suddenly into being.
Then why isn't it considered?
Perhaps the answer was given
by NASA astrophysicist Robert
Jastrow. Though his field of
interest is more the origin of the
universe than the origin of life,
the parallel between both studies
is interesting.
In the Beginning
The study of the origin of life is
being altered by evidence that life
forms carne abruptly into being.
So too, the study of the origin of
the universe has been modified by
findings that compel astrophysi–
cists to consider that the universe
had a definite beginning.
That the heavens and the earth
carne into being at a definite
point in time is contrary to wbat
many experts prefer to believe.
But that is exactly what the Bible
has always said. One would think
the astronomers and physicists
would therefore consider the bib–
lical account as a possibility at
least. But no, as with the evolu–
tionary scientists, there is no
move among the astronomers and
physicists to the Bible.
It
is as
though there is an unspoken rule
among the members of the scien–
tific community that God and the
Bible are to be automatically
excluded from any search for
scientific truth.
So striking is this phenomenon
that Mr. Jastrow, a self-pro–
claimed agnostic, commented on
it: "Theologians generally are
delighted with the proof that the
universe had a beginning. But
astronomers are curiously upset
by it. Their reactions provide an
interesting demonstration of the
response of the scientific mind–
supposedly a very objective
mind-when evidence uncovered
by science itself leads to a conft ict
with the articles of faith in their
profession.
It
turns out that scien–
tists behave the way the rest of us
do when our beliefs are in conflict
with the evidence: We become
irritated; we pretend the conflict
does not exist; or, we paper it over
with meaningless phrases" (Los
Angeles
Times,
June 25, 1978).
There is a religion in science–
a faith that every event can be
logically accounted for as the
product of sorne previous event.
But to define that previous even t
science insists on evidence it can
see, feel, measure or weigh. This
leaves out the supernatural,
because the ultimate "event" is–
Goo.
Thus a vital dimension is miss–
ing from scientific reasoning. The
Bible depicts as fools those who
are "ever learning, and never able
to come to the knowledge of the
truth" (II Timothy 3:7). Truth in
any matter cannot be determined
if
al!
the evidence is not exam–
ined.
As long as the spiritual
dimension is exc luded from
scientific reasoning, new theories
will constantly have to be
advanced as old ones prove inad–
equate. Ultimately, though, it
will be necessary for science to
come to terms with the super–
natural. Mr. Jastrow describes
that moment: "For the scientist
who has lived by his faith in the
power of reason, the story ends
like a bad dream. He has scaled
the mountains of ignorance; he
is about to conquer the highest
peak; as he pulls himself over
the final rock, he is greeted by a
band of t heologians who have
been sitting there. for centuries."
The question we pose to Mr.
Jastrow is, why have the band of
theologians been
sitting
there.
Has there been something equal–
ly wrong in theology as in evo–
lutionary science? o
2 1