The Skeleton in Evolution's Closet

The Skeleton in Evolution’s Closet

There is an old saying, “Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle.” Today however, thanks to the Darwinists, the saying is revised “Well, a monkey is my uncle.” In true Darwinian tradition, the many books devoted to evolution have catalytically sparked an evolution of another kind, at least for me. The product of this new evolution is a new literary medium I shall call a “review of a book review.” The rationale for this new medium is expediency. There are too many books to read, particularly on the subject of evolution. So, a reader must resort to book reviews, particularly if the book doesn’t appear that compelling anyway. This article, then, actually reviews the review of a book.

The book under discussion is “Why Evolution is True,” by Jerry A. Coyne. Unfortunately for Mr. Coyne, his book follows on the coat tails of many other books on the same subject. Consequently, (in Mr. Coyne’s beloved evolutionary pattern) such a frequency of books on the subject has forcefully interjected a strong element of suspicion of all evolutionary authors’ motives into the debate. The most conclusive observation on such evolution apologists now becomes “The lady doth protest too much methinks.” (Shakespeare from Hamlet). The world heard “evolution” the first time one hundred and fifty years ago when Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” started it all. “Why Evolution is True” continues and updates the argument. The Wall Street Journal review by Philip Kitcher underscores the author’s concern that surveys show most Americans “have grave doubts about the truth of Darwin’s theory.” He is, in fact, “perturbed enough by the survey results to want to remedy the situation.”

Kitcher cites “Mr. Coyne’s parade of evidence—his discussion of the fossil record, of vestigial traits, of the ways in which living things constantly make novel use of the bits and pieces they have inherited, of the distribution of plants and animals—(and conclusion) the components of Darwin’s thesis are sequentially supported.”

The key fallacy in Mr. Coyne’s and other apologists’ approach to evolution is their argument inferentially excludes the existence of God. This exclusion of God causes great annoyance and displeasure for most people living on the planet. The heart of Mr. Coyne’s argument is “Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago: it then branched out over time throwing off many and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.” This removes God from the equation of life on the planet. Our uncle, the monkey, is really not a monkey at all. He has been replaced by a mere self-replicating molecule. That’s even more distressing.

The exclusion of God, as one of the consequential central theses of most evolutionists is defended by their hiding behind a subjective and biased utilization of their cherished scientific method. Like Mr. Coyne, their fallacy is they universally reject the possibility of God by refusing to take even the first step into a scientific investigation of the possibility of God. That is to say, they never objectively ask the question “is there a god?” This does not mean that no scientist ever asked the question however, the scientific method demands “hard objective evidence” (according to their definition of evidence) to support the conclusion. With this ingrained bias of most evolutionists, if not also most scientists, it is impossible to conduct a scientific investigation of the existence of God because all evidence suggesting a spiritual existence is classified as “not hard and objective.” The rejection by evolutionists and scientists of the entire class of evidence they exclude because it does not conform to “their definition of objective” violates their own scientific methodology. They refuse to consider all the evidence, precisely as did the jurors in the O.J. Simpson trial, with the end results paralleling each other in absolute absurdity. Flawed reasoning of this magnitude would challenge the ancient observation, “Man is a reasoning animal.” Seneca ( 8B.C. – A.D. 65).

The evidence chain Science chooses to ignore contains the observations and experiences of millions of individuals of the human species over time. Mankind, in every culture, has observed the presence of a higher power as long as mankind has existed. Scientists’ explanations of any spiritual experience, however, are always “a mind playing tricks on its owner.” The rejection by the scientific community of the massive body of evidence under the classification of “spiritual” is, in itself, an unforgivable chasm of ignorance. What science fails to understand about this spiritual class evidence is, like any other evidence, constructive and methodical examination is required to separate the valid from the invalid. Every rock at an archaeological excavation is not an artifact. The great majority of rocks are just rocks. Under the “Spiritual Classification,” only the most verifiable evidence must be included. The “rocks’ in this case are those who falsify or magnify a spiritual event to achieve their own agenda, thereby destroying their own credibility and compromising the body of evidence itself. The necessary objectivity for evidence classified as spiritual (as opposed to merely subjective) can only be achieved by integrity in reporting the facts.

Several years ago, my mother had been taken from the emergency room to the Intensive Care Unit. The prognosis was not good. Her ninety-six year old heart had stopped beating twice for ten to fifteen seconds or more. After her own doctor and the doctor in charge of the Intensive Care Section had conferred, they had concluded she could not survive. As they informed me of this prognosis in the hallway outside her room, they asked me what I wanted to do. I simply said, “She will survive. Bring her back.” I knew that she had recovered from life threatening events several times before and her recuperative powers were phenomenal. The doctors did not know this. Nevertheless, with the situation impossibly dire, and the team of physicians expecting and predicting she would not live, she miraculously survived. The doctor in charge of Intensive Care came to me and said her recovery was incredible. He was smiling and I think a bit surprised. I thanked him profusely for saving my mother’s life. What he said then, and the tone in which he said it, greatly surprised me.

He said, “I didn’t save your mother’s life.” Pointing upward, he said “Someone else is in charge here. I am only a tool. I do not make the decisions on who lives or dies. We do what we can and someone else decides.” I saw him again the next day and thanked him again. Again, he repeated. “I am just a tool here. Someone else decides who lives.” A member of the family heard two of the doctors discussing my mother’s case in the elevator shortly after her miraculous recovery. One doctor said to the other, “What just happened should not have happened.” They were just as perplexed about how she recovered as the other doctors in the Intensive Care Unit.

I also talked to the nurse in the Intensive Care Unit about how incredible it was that my mother recovered. She told me that they see “miraculous recoveries” often in the ICU. She also told me, someone else is controlling things here. We just do our jobs.

The spiritual aspect of my two conversations with the doctor who was the head of the ICU as well as my conversation the nurse would challenge even the most hardened skeptic on the existence of God. My mother’s recovery was a miracle in every sense of the word as I understand it. Skeptics would point out that she had incredible recuperative powers. Also, I am not an authority on miracles. But, consider this: During this time, I observed or experienced discussions with physicians, their demeanor and tone, the actual events occurring, the reactions of physicians to my mother’s recovery, her ongoing condition, and the comments made by the Director of the Intensive Care Unit and other care givers referencing spiritual intervention in their various patients. Not only my mother’s case, but also the many other cases these physicians and other care givers had experienced, provide more than adequate evidence to support a serious consideration of a spiritual existence.

The Spiritual Body of Evidence however must include an “objective assessment” of those events or experiences and classify them according to their credibility. Simply saying something is miraculous is not adequate. As an example, for the Catholic Church, the village of Lourdes in France is a significant religious shrine. In 1858, Bernadette Soubirous witnessed several apparitions of the Virgin Mary. Since that time, many millions of people have visited Lourdes (six million people per year come to Lourdes, 70,000 of them sick and disabled and seeking a cure). Thousands claim to have been miraculously cured since 1858. However, the Catholic Church has established a rigorous investigative process to validate whether a miracle actually occurred. A miracle is defined a miracle as “an extraordinary event, believed to be due to divine intervention, to which is attributed a spiritual significance.”

Before an event is classified as a miracle, four separate steps are required:
1. Examination of individual by a medical bureau (first level of assessment).
2. Medical criteria for a cure must be satisfied.
3. Examination of patient and history of case by the international committee.
4. Diocesan Canonical Commission is convened (theologians and doctors) to consider the case and whether the cure is a “sign of god.”

From a mathematical standpoint, of the many thousands claiming to have been miraculously cured since 1858, the Church recognizes only sixty seven as actual miracles. This is a very small percentage of those claiming a miraculous cure, a very minute percentage of the total number of people coming to Lourdes seeking a cure, and reflects the intense diligence the Church demands in the classification process. However, there are possibly other cases of miraculous cures which occurred but were not, however, classified as miracles because certain steps in the rigorous examination process were not satisfied. On the other hand, the counterpoint might be that some of the sixty seven cures classified as miracles may not actually have been miracles.

However, in the final analysis, the same level of scientific respect must be accorded the examination process and the learned individuals involved as is accorded other men and women of science and the results of their research. Given that presumption, it is not a great leap to conclude that spiritual involvement is evident in certain specific cases classified as miracles.

The Shroud of Turin is another example of the rigor applied by the Catholic Church to the verification of miracles. The Shroud of Turin apparently dates from the first century and is considered by many to be the burial shroud of Jesus Christ. The position of the Church is that it neither confirms nor denies the authenticity of the Shroud. While the Shroud has been examined many times by many experts who have offered conflicting opinions on its authenticity, no one has been able to figure out how the full length image of Christ’s body was imprinted on the cloth itself. Many people, including experts, believe the image, which is an exact photographic negative, was formed by a radiation like burst of energy. They conclude that this is proof of Christ’s Resurrection. While it would be an easy leap to ascribe a miraculous event to the creation of the cloth, the Church stops short of that conclusion. Based on the considerable evidence which I have seen as well as many expert (scientific and not) analyses of the cloth, I personally believe the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial Shroud of Jesus and is material proof of his Resurrection. However, I would leave open the possibility that a credible, contrary explanation for the creation of the cloth could be provided in the future.

There is a church, Saint Edward on the Lake, in Lakeport, Michigan. In the late 1970’s, my family attended this church. The pastor, Father Hogan, was a very credible and very holy person. When I attended Sunday Mass with Father Hogan on the altar, there was something very special happening. Of the thousands of masses in the many, many Catholic churches I have attended, only the masses with Father Hogan affected me in this specific manner. As I watched Father Hogan on the altar, I could strongly sense a spiritual connection with God. When it was necessary to move to another city, I came to see Father Hogan at his residence. I wanted to tell him “goodbye” and thank him for the spirituality I felt when he said Mass. While we were talking, he described a particular spiritual event which he had experienced. He described it as follows: During one particular mass, as he held up the monstrance (a receptacle holding the host) and looked at the host, he saw the face of Jesus Christ looking back at him. Father Hogan, then a man in his sixties, said that of the thousands of masses he had conducted, this event had only occurred during this one time. While I believed he considered this particular event to be of the greatest importance, I don’t know if he would consider it a miracle. On the other hand, he would not care about how the event was classified. The important point is that it happened and it made a lifelong impression on Father Hogan. In the context of the spiritual connection I experienced during Father Hogan’s masses and his deep reflection as he recounted on seeing the face of Jesus, a conclusion of a spiritual presence is inescapable.

Returning to the original point of this article, the review of the book review, the conceptual failure of this book, as with other books on evolution, is the exclusion of the spiritual aspect of life on the planet. Mr. Coyne does mumble something about the contemplation of the wonders of the universe as having a spiritual flavor. However, because it echoes most scientists’ refusal to acknowledge a spiritual existence, the book is a catastrophic failure of logic and reason.

To support this conclusion, I would challenge Mr. Coyne and his fellow scientists and evolutionists with two questions which, while they are consistently ignored, should actually be the main consideration of their argument.

1. If life on earth began with a self-replicating molecule, where did the self-replicating molecule come from?
2. Then, while contemplating the wonders of the universe as Mr. Coyne suggests, one other small detail is “Where did the Universe come from?”

To date, no one has been able to answer either of these questions. Basically, humankind cannot comprehend nor explain either one of the smallest objects in the universe, the molecule, nor the largest object in the universe, that being the universe itself. It is okay to drag out that tired old explanation, the “Big-Bang Theory,” as we contemplate the wonders of the universe as Mr. Coyne suggests. However, in doing so, we must remember this simple analogy. As you sit contemplating the wonders of a July 4th fireworks display, it would seem the source of all those beautiful lights in the sky was also a “big-bang” which was heard just prior to their occurrence. But we know that the “big-bang” we heard was not the real source of the fireworks in the sky. Their real source was a firecracker.

Whether we are contemplating the beauty of lights in the sky from a fireworks display or the beauty of lights in the sky by looking through a telescope at the universe, the most relevant question is “Who lit the firecracker?” Evolution did not begin with a self-replicating molecule. Evolution began with the creation of the self-replicating molecule. As such, “Why Evolution is True” stops short of tracing the entire path of evolution in that it relies upon physical evidence only. The refusal to include evidence classified as “spiritual” is not only a shortfall of logic and reason, but the resultant apologia reeks of scientific arrogance and academic irresponsibility. In this newest book on evolution, nothing has changed. “Evolution” itself has failed to evolve.

James Wharton
Copyright