Creationist column misquotes scientists; evidence supports theory of evolution

Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor,

In a column in the most recent issue of The Breeze, Jon Anderson wished to persuade us that scientists are confused about evolution. He provides two lines of evidence in support of this view — a 50-year-old calculation purportedly showing that life could not have formed naturally and a caricatured version of modern paleontology — to argue that the fossil record is contrary to evolutionary expectations. However, none of Anderson’s major assertions are true.

Evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. The question of where life came from is separate from the question of what happened to it once it appeared. Individuals need a different theory to explain the origin of life, just like they need a different theory to explain the motions of the planets.

Anderson cites Fred Hoyle as his authority for claiming life could not have formed naturally. You don’t need a degree in mathematics to see through such claims. No simple probability calculation possibly could imply what Anderson suggests. I’m sure biologists engaged in origin-of-life research would be shocked to learn that they have overlooked a simple calculation comprehensible to any undergraduate.

There are gaps in the fossil record, but Anderson’s examples are not among them. For example, the transitions from fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, and reptile to mammal — among many others — are documented; the links can be found in any recent book on paleontology.

Anderson claims support for his allegations from paleontologists Colin Patterson, Stephen Jay Gould, and George Gaylord Simpson. He has misrepresented all three of them — none were addressing the general questions of whether the fossil record was consistent with evolution, or whether there were transitional forms between major groups of animals such as reptiles and mammals. Instead, the issues they were discussing were more esoteric issues of interest primarily to researchers.

For example, Gould has written, "… it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." I wonder why Anderson didn’t cite that quote.

Patterson wrote, "In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back 60 million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull."

Creationists have misquoted George Gaylord Simpson so many times that there is a web site devoted to explaining what he actually said.

The reason scientists become so exasperated when arguing with creationists is that the latter have never shown even the slightest interest in bothering to understand the theory they attack with such venom.

Jason Rosenhouse
assistant professor
Department of Mathematics and Statistics