The Case for a Creator - Lee Strobel [16]
“Absolutely not,” Wells replied. “If that’s all there was to Darwinism, then there wouldn’t be any controversy, because we all agree there has been biological change over time. Others define evolution as just being ‘descent with modification.’ But again, everyone agrees that all organisms within a single species are related through descent with modification. This occurs in the ordinary course of biological reproduction.
“Darwinism claims much more than that—it’s the theory that all living creatures are modified descendents of a common ancestor that lived long ago. You and I, for example, are descendants of ape-like ancestors—in fact, we share a common ancestor with fruit flies. Darwinism claims that every new species that has ever appeared can be explained by descent with modification. Neo-Darwinism claims these modifications are the result of natural selection acting on random genetic mutations.” 10
“If these icons are the illustrations most cited as evidence of evolution, then I can see why they’re important,” I said. “What did you find as you examined them one by one?”
Wells didn’t hesitate. “That they’re either false or misleading,” he replied.
“False or misleading?” I echoed. “Wait a second—are you saying my science teacher was lying to me? That’s a pretty outrageous charge!”
Wells shook his head. “No, I’m not saying that. He probably believed in the icons too. I’m sure he wasn’t even aware of the way they misrepresent the evidence. But the end result is the same—much of what science teachers have been telling students is simply wrong. A lot of what you personally were told about the icons, for instance, is probably false.”
I considered the implications for a moment. “Okay, let me follow your logic,” I said. “If these icons are cited by scientists so often because they’re among the best evidence for Darwinism—”
“—And if they’re either false or misleading,” he said, picking up my thought, “then what does that tell us about evolutionary theory? That’s the point. The question I’m raising is whether all of this is really science—or is it actually a kind of mythology?”
That’s the very question I wanted to pursue. I decided that my approach would be to ask Wells for the straight story on each of the icons that especially influenced me. I started with the one that had the biggest impact: the picture of the tubes, flasks, and electrodes of Stanley Miller’s 1953 experiment in which he shot electricity through an atmosphere like the one on the primitive earth, creating amino acids—the building blocks of life.
The clear implication—that life could be created naturalistically, without the intervention of a Creator—had been largely responsible for untethering me from my need for God.
IMAGE #1: THE MILLER EXPERIMENT
Obviously, the significance of Miller’s experiment—which to this day is still featured in many biology textbooks—hinges on whether he used an atmosphere that accurately simulated the environment of the early earth. At the time, Miller was relying heavily on the atmospheric theories of his doctoral advisor, Nobel laureate Harold Urey.
“What’s the best scientific assessment today?” I asked Wells. “Did Miller use the correct atmosphere or not?”
Wells leaned back in his chair. “Well, nobody knows for sure what the early atmosphere was like, but the consensus is that the atmosphere was not at all like the one Miller used,” he began.
“Miller chose a hydrogen-rich mixture of methane, ammonia, and water vapor, which was consistent with what many scientists thought back then. But scientists don’t believe that anymore. As a geophysicist with the Carnegie Institution said in the 1960s, ‘What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth? The answer is that there is no evidence for it, but much against it.’ 11
“By the mid-1970s, Belgian biochemist Marcel Florkin was declaring that the concept behind Miller’s theory of the early atmosphere ‘has been abandoned.’ 12 Two of the leading origin-of-life researchers, Klaus Dose and Sidney Fox, confirmed that Miller had used the wrong gas mixture.