Olshevsky is 100 percent wrong; the accumulation of evidence has made the classic case for evolution more a matter of faith, not less.
Unfortunately, Olshevsky is 100 percent correct in his statement that none of the scientists mentioned above is giving up his belief in evolution and adopting a creationist position. But that very fact puts me in an embarrassing position as a science teacher. I have to tell my students that, in spite of the repeated failures of evolutionary theory, most scientists are bent on forcing the evidence to fit some sort of evolutionary view—even Olshevsky’s “punctualism,” which Gould calls, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” a view that is based on genetics that have never been observed and fossils that have never been found.
“Scientific creationists” like Dr. Gish, however, have been presenting their case on the basis of known scientific principles and fossils that have been found. Olshevsky states that he has “never seen a statement of the ‘theory’ of creationism anywhere,” yet there is actually an enormous amount of creation science literature written from elementary to graduate research level, much of it produced right here in San Diego at the internationally recognized Institute for Creation Research (which also houses a creation museum).
Olshevsky is rightly concerned about “the minds of children too young to distinguish truth from rubbish.” It’s certainly true that students with access to all the evidence regarding human origins, for example, might properly wonder which really is rubbish—evolution or creation. But training in “healthy skepticism” is foundational in true science education, and open discussion on both sides of the evolution / creation question seems to be an excellent means to a worthy goal.
If evolution is supported better by the evidence than creation, then what do evolutionists have to fear from exploring both sides of the origins question? If creation is better supported, what does science have to lose by pursuing truth to whatever conclusion fits the facts the best? Isn’t that what education in science is all about?
—Dr. Gary E. Parker,
Professor of Biology / Paleontology
Christian Heritage College
El Cajon
Sent February 2, 1981 to the Tribune:
Dear Sir:
Thank you for printing my long letter of 1/24/81 in VOP. Unfortunately, it had the side effect of spawning an almost equally lengthy response from the creationists, namely, the letter in VOP for 1/31/81 from Dr. Gary E. Parker, Professor of Biology and Paleontology at Christian Heritage College. He suggests that I have not kept up with the “cutting edge” of evolutionary theory, which is, of course, false. Contrary to his assertion that my points were “out of date” and “in error,” the examples cited in my letter were well chosen and beautifully illustrate the fact of evolution. Many of the details can be found in George Gaylord Simpson’s book, THE MEANING OF EVOLUTION (revised edition, 1971), which is by no means as dated as Parker might have us believe. Stephen Jay Gould’s magnum opus, ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY (Belknap Press, Harvard, 1977), develops a highly subtle and original description of the process which engenders new species from old. An excellent recent statement of the thesis of punctuated evolution is Steven M. Stanley’s book, MACRO EVOLUTION: PATTERN AND PROCESS (Freeman, 1979). I suggest Parker return to these volumes to acquire a broader perspective of what evolution is all about. It evidently escaped him the first time around.
No paleobiologist in his right mind would ever point to a specific fossil and declare that it is the transitional form between two other specific fossils. Only an incredibly small fraction of all the prehistoric animals that have ever lived occur as fossils, and the odds against finding a complete sequence of transitional forms are inconceivably remote. It should be very clear to Parker that the term “transitional” involves generalization, and I am baffled by his seeming ignorance of this obvious point.
All scientists of evolution acknowledge that the fossil record is imperfect. This fact, being negative evidence, can never by itself invalidate the evolutionary hypothesis. It is, rather, the fact that practically every known fossil shares some morphologic characters with other forms that is of major significance to the theory of evolution.
In his discussion of hominids, Parker invokes hoaxes and errors—some of which, such as the Piltdown Man, might actually have been planted by creationists bent on muddying the waters—which are totally irrelevant as documentation of the hominid fossil record. Further, he seems unaware that Neanderthals were quite different from modern man (see “Neanderthal the Hunter,” by Valerius Geist, in the January 1981 issue of Natural History magazine), and by his own admission acknowledges that australopithecines “remain as possible links to man.” The sequence from the monkey like Aegyptopithecus through Ramapithecus to Australopithecus to Homo documents a major trend recognized by virtually every scientist of hominid evolution.
The primary impact of the work of John Ostrom of Yale on Archaeopteryx stems from his documentation of over 20 morphologic characters that Archaeopteryx shares with dromaeosaurid dinosaurs, and not his clearly labeled as hypothetical sequence illustrating his view of the evolution of flight. The most current summary of avian evolution is Alan Feduccia’s THE AGE OF BIRDS (Harvard University Press, 1980), in which is unambiguously documented the existence of a functional furcula and primary and secondary flight feathers in Archaeopteryx. We do not at this point care how feathers might have evolved from scales, nor how flight feathers and a furcula came to be in a fossil which is otherwise a typical small dinosaur. We do not at this point care whether Archaeopteryx is exactly one half bird and one half dinosaur, nor just where this occurs in the fossil record. The single solid inference provided by Archaeopteryx—glaringly obvious to any scientist but totally lost on Parker—is that birds and dinosaurs are closely related, because Archaeopteryx is indeed, as I asserted previously, a form perfectly transitional between the two groups.
Parker notes that “bones of typical birds have been found as far down in the geologic sequence as those of Archaeopteryx.” Not yet, they haven’t! Not one positively identifiable avian bone has been discovered in the Jurassic or earlier other than Archaeopteryx. I have made an extensive survey of the scientific literature in the course of my own work, and have determined that all known putative Jurassic avian fossils—which are extremely rare in any case—not accompanied by feather impressions cannot be reliably distinguished from small dinosaurs or pterosaurs.
Creationists demand that evolutionists supply them with evolutionary links to substantiate their theories. The evolutionists proceed to do so. The creationists then demand links between the links. On occasion, the evolutionists can still supply them. Then the creationists demand links between those links. Eventually, of course, fossil record peters out, at which time the creationists shout, “Aha! The links are still missing! Your theory is wrong!” This is the kind of garbage reasoning that is parroted by Parker when he cites David Raup—totally out of context, incidentally—in his letter.
What, then, do the creationists offer in place of evolution? Is there a coherent theory that can be subjected to scientific scrutiny and debate? How are species formed, if not by evolving from other species? How do creationists account for the systematic nature of the fossil record, or the fact that morphologic phylogenies closely resemble phylogenies developed by protein amino acid sequence analysis, or the observation that ontogeny seems to recapitulate phylogeny, or the remarkable fact that all the living things on Earth down to the level of bacteria use the same genetic code and the same genetic material, DNA? The theory of evolution, incomplete as it may be, provides detailed explanations that make sense. All that the creationists can say is simply, “That’s all just some kind of coincidence,” or, “That’s the way God works, and we’ll never understand God.” Healthy skepticism is indeed the agent of scientific progress, but I am not so skeptical of the enormous body of evidence for evolution that I would discard it in favor of the total chaos of creationism.
Thus, when I stated in my letter that I
had never seen a statement of the “theory” of creationism anywhere, I meant exactly that. I am well aware of the vast propaganda that passes for scientific literature, published by creationists and backed by fundamentalist religious sects trying to turn back the clock to the good old days when the Earth was the center of all creation and religious thought dominated Western culture. Let me quote from a book in my possession, written by the very Duane T. Gish quoted in the Tribune on 1/10/81, titled DINOSAURS: THOSE TERRIBLE LIZARDS, published right here in San Diego by our own nest of creationists, and designed for sale to children for $6.95:
“When did these animals become meat-eaters, if indeed they were meat-eaters as most scientists believe? Genesis 1:29-30 indicates that as originally created, man and all animals were to be plant-eaters only. We believe it is very likely that some animals, such as the dinosaurs, lions, tigers, etc., became meat-eaters after sin came into the world.” (page 37)
Gish offers the following explanation of the function of the odd skulls of certain herbivorous dinosaurs: “No one has ever been able to figure out what these hollow bony structures were used for…Maybe this creature could mix some chemicals together similar to those used by the bombardier beetle, and store them in a storage chamber. Then when a meat-eating dinosaur like Tyrannosaurus came after him, he could squirt a big charge into his combustion chamber (the hollow structure on top of his head?), add an antiinhibitor at just the right time, and ZZZZZZZZZZZ! Fire and smoke would come pouring out right in the face of the Tyrannosaurus.” (page 55, accompanied by a color picture of Parasaurolophus blowing away Tyrannosaurus with his fiery breath, on pages 50-51)
Indeed! Lack of space prohibits quoting more of these creationist howlers.
Creationists accuse scientists of making up this fantasy of evolution and basing it on faith, not fact. Yet there is not a shred of evidence that sin and carnivores are in any way connected, not a shred of evidence that dinosaurs breathed fire. And why, if Tyrannosaurus and Parasaurolophus were both originally created as plant eaters, would the herbivore have been given this fire-breathing apparatus to defend itself in the first place?
Yes, tragically, creationism has an extensive literature. So do astrology, occultism, parapsychology, flying saucers, pyramidology, scientology and any number of other bizarre human endeavors.
Having an extensive literature is no guarantee against folly. Proper scientific debate of the merits of creationism has indeed taken place, but it was so short and swift that most of the creationists—including Dr. Gary E. Parker—missed it completely.
—George Olshevsky,
Member
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
Interim memo
The Harlan Ellison Recording Collection mentioned in this column not only still exists, it has grown like The Blob. There are now over 1500 more-or-less satisfied customers who’ve bought recordings of yr. humble svt. and in 1983 the HERC recording of “Jeffty is Five” was nominated for a Grammy in the Spoken Word category. I mention all of this in hopes that each of you who have been told, to this point in the book, not to write for free samples of this’n’that, or to express your displeasure with something I’ve said, will join the HERC. This, as opposed to idle freebies or expressing opinions, is commerce. And as we know, having been told by both Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan, this is important because: “The business of America…is business!” So be a Good American: join the Harlan Ellison Recording Collection, send me money, go broke, sell your children or your heritage (whichever come first) for a mess of pottage!
INSTALLMENT 9: 25 APRIL 81
PUBLISHED 9 JUNE 81 FUTURE LIFE #28 COVER-DATED AUGUST
As I write this—weeks late and my sanity maintained largely through the forbearance of my editor, Bob Woods—the mail has not begun arriving in response to last issue’s opening encounter with the Moral Majority, the New Right, the Forces of Reactionary Censorship…call them what you will. I expect the usual apoplectic screeds. And they will, no doubt, be of a piece with the several hundred letters that came in to Heavy Metal magazine recently, hard on the heels of an editorial I was pressed into writing on the subject of gun control. The editorial was sparked by the death of John Lennon, but it was foursquarely concerned with the inarticulate conspiracy of which we are all a part…when we don’t break our asses to get gun control passed in this ever-more-deranged nation.
Even for those few of you who actually still believe civilians ought to be permitted to own guns, a reading of my mail after the appearance of the editorial would serve, I feel sure, to convince you that we must have total gun control as quickly as possible. The letters are ennobled by the word “sick.” The realization that there are people out among us who are even capable of writing such deranged foulness could not but serve to sway you inexorably to a belief that madness is not manifested solely in the personae of the David Berkowitzes, Mark David Chapmans, Charlie Mansons and John Hinckleys who wander stunned and ready to explode through the feartime night.
This resurgence of widespread lunatic behavior is not, I am convinced, a thing apart from the rise of the Moral Majority. I think it is a manifestation of the same disease in the body politic that has caused the fundamentalists and all their clone-children to assume such prominence on the national scene.
Photo: Kent Bash
It is not simply coincidence that Berkowitz (Son of Sam) listened to the voice of God who told him to kill; that Chapman had been involved with cults and was a brainwashee of the Jesus Movement; that Charlie Manson was brought up deeply and rigidly religious, and that he sought a new religion in the overlay of mysticism Sixties’ layabouts perceived in Heinlein’s STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND with its Christ-surrogate, Valentine Michael Smith; that Hinckley is a longtime reader of science fiction and adventure fantasy. Look at photos of Berkowitz, Chapman and Hinckley. Lay them side-by-side and look at the somatotype similarity. They look as if their moonstruck faces had been cut by the same cookie stamper.
In my endeavor to confront the maleficence of the Moral Majority—its book burnings, its attempts at legislating morality, its Dark Ages sensibility toward science, its Spanish Inquisition vengefulness—I have begun to sense a linkage between mind-dribble fantasy of the sort typified by films like Excalibur and the recent NBC effluvium Fugitive from the Empire, and the comeback of born-again fundamentalism in this country. I’ll go further: I perceive the linkages between mind-dribble fantasy (I’ll define that at greater length perhaps in the next installment) (for the nonce, you can assume I mean that subgenre of fantasy dealing with chattering bunnies, furry-footed denizens of deep forests, dragons, lion-maned barbarian warriors, runic quests in search of the lost scepter or the mystic bloodstone, nerds who say thee and thou a lot, and call their enemies varlet…you know what I mean: the kind of books that have unpronounceable words in the title and pastel vistas painted on the covers) and dat ole time religion currently masquerading as a socio-political revival of ethic as only part of the chain that includes berserker assassins in love with Jodie Foster or Jessica Savitch; the proliferation of nauseating knife-kill flicks in which women are endlessly raped, brutalized, carved up, and rendered nonthreatening to males who cannot cope with a world in which women are their equals, even in some things; the insensate rise in anti-Semitism, pseudo-Naziism, the KKK (with military training camps in 27 states) and a hundred different cults—each with its own bush-league messiah—dedicated to keeping its drone members dumb and penniless; and the paranoid need of NRA “sportsmen” to convince themselves that a nigger is just about to break into their home and rape their cellulite-riddled wife.
It is my sure conviction that all of this is linked.
And so last issue I ran a series of letters between a paleontologist named George Olshevsky, and some creationists. I turned over my column to Olshevsky, whom I see as a courageous man, because he had gone as far as he could go. He had put himself on the line against the cabal, and the medium in which the fray was fought, a San Diego newspaper, chose
not to serve the ends of rationality and exhaustive discussion; but merely the commercial end of “let’s you two fight” until they felt the audience was growing bored. So Olshevsky, frustrated, wrote me (definitely the court of last resort) and asked if he should keep at it. I responded by giving him a much larger forum than formerly.
And I said, last column, that I’d come back this time to make a few parting remarks on the subject. The preceding have been those remarks, buttressed by these:
After the Lennon gun-control essay, I received the kind of mail I expect to get from last issue’s refutation of the idiocy of creationism. One of the letters was on embossed Nazi swastika stationery. It was from a man in the U.S. Navy, at the Groton, Connecticut submarine base. I hope he was trying to be funny, using that stationery.
Uh-huh. That’s my hope.
But if I get another one from him like that, I think I’ll send it on to the Base Commander, who may have been in WWII and who may remember what that crippled cross stands for. Because it seems to me that in these days of trembling crystal, with the glass singing its song of impending shatterment, and lizard men in three-piece ice cream suits promising us salvation in the life of a sheep, there are very few realities whose unarguable truth is not up for grabs. And one of the most firmly secured is that twenty million civilian victims of Nazi brutality, twenty million homeless ghosts, whisper to us night and day that we must ever be on guard against a return of that hurricane insanity that challenged god and man and sanity. For smartass punks who think it’s rebellious or hip to make use of the swastika, history is waiting to snatch you away and give you over to the sleepless ghosts.
I need a break.
So this section of the current installment will be given over to making a buck. Pure self-serving, calculated commercial enticement (of an interesting sort); but if I can’t apprise you, my readers, of this…then who the hell can I buttonhole?
An Edge in My Voice Page 10
