Full Text for Creation And Evolution: A New Departure (Text)

Creation And Evolution: A New D,eparture Whatever urlditio~ral factors may be added to nntzcral selectio~z-n~zd Dar~ui~z hilrzself fully admitted that there nzight be others-the theory of an cvolutio~z process in the forlnation of the z~lriverse n~zd of a~~imatcd lzaturc 1s establishcrl, ntzd the olrl theory of direct crentioll IS golze for eve^.^ T HE ABOVE OBSERVATION WAS MADE by Andrew Dick- son White in his two volume work, A History of the Warfare of Scielzc.e ~uitlz Theology i~z Christendonz in 19 13. IVhitc believed that bj. 191 3, thc war between science and theology concerning the formation of the universe was nearly at an enit. Science hacl tri- umphed in the "last battle" which pitted ~~aturalistic e\~oIution on one side and Christian theistic creation on the other. 14s science 11ad previously demonstrated that God is not in the clouds causing the rain and thunder, so also by 19 13, science had shown that the origin of life itself coulci be explained adequately without any need to invole the supernatural and its problcnlatic resident Deity. As science marches on, the footprints of God seem to grow Inore and more faint. This has causecl theologians to yell, "Have faith!" and has caused the philosophy of scientific materialism to bccome an alnlost mondithic cultural Weltanschauu~zg among intellectunls on both sides of the Iron Curtain. The material universe is the only reality. All phenomena, especially the forination of the universe, can be explained in ternls of physical laws and molecular properties. Despite this almost nlonolithic philosopl~ical view in the scielltific community today, ruinbles of discontent can be heard. Man i '.::'ng scientists working in the areas of physics, Inathenlatics anc c)oer- netics are beginning to question the adequacy of naturalistic evolu- tionary princi les and materialistic world-views that haw caused Darwinian evo P ution as a foundation. It is the purpose of this paper to demonstrate that, as Darwin suspected, it is reasonable to believe that there are missing factors in the Darwinian hypot11esis. Discussion will be limited to the sub- ject of abiogenesis (the emergence of life from non-life), yet the physical and chemical principles invoIved in this area are identical to those of phylogenesis-(development of species). Recent cliscoveries concerning the structure and function of the DNA molecule, ad- vances in cybernetic technology and research, and the entrance of physicists and nlathenlaticians into the abiogenrtic field have brought new light upon the subject of the formation and maintenance of organic life. Part of this paper will entail a critical examination of the Darwinian. hypothesis in light of recent research in the above noted areas, l'art two will present a nclv (or possibly old) hypothesis which will incorporate or account for those necessary factors llot found in the Darwinian theory. I. THE DAR\iVINIAN HYl'OTHESIS RE-EXAMINED Living creatures on enl-t?z are n direct product of the earth. There is ~zow little cloz~bt that liviug things 0.2~12.e their origin e~tirely to certain physical nzd chcnzicnl proiu- erties of the artcient earth. Nothi~zg su~-/ernntural was in- volvcd-olzly tiwze and ~zatzirnl physical and chenaicnt lnws operati~g within a peczrliarly sz.titnb2e earthly eenviro,zvzent. Giz~e~z such a~z enviro~znzent, life probably had to happen.? This statement by Professor Paul B. Weisz provides an excel- lent sunlmary of the Darwinian explanation of abiogencsis. The supernatural is totally unnecessary to account for life. The evolu- tionary hypothesis stated as an equation could be formuIated in the following way: inorganic matter (with its inherent known proper- ties) {- random chemical reactions + time - organic life. Non- living mattcr, in the passage of time, becanle ordered progressively until it reached a stage of complcxity sufficient to support the bio- chemistry of life as we ]robable event probable is only valid in principle with non-reversible systems. The problem with the c~~olutionists' application of this probability 1 scheme to chemical reactions is that chemical reactions are usually reversible. Hence, Dr. A. E. W7ilder Slllitll maintains: . , . increasing the time factor in reversible reactions nlerely in- creases the chances that ecluilibrium rather than the in~probable will be reached. Living biochemicals are highly improbable structures. Thus, increasing the time span allottecl to a 1-c- versible rcactioil will bring equilibrium-not the increasing con~plexity which leads to life." "The longer the time allo.tved for a rcversible synthesis to oc- cur, the more lil