Josh Gurtler is presenting an enlightening and thought-provoking series on Evolution on Sunday afternoons here at our meeting place. You'll find a schedule of his presentations here, and you can listen to his first presentation here. Related to his efforts, I want use this space to make you aware of some observations by a noted Evolutionist, the late G. A. Kerkut, who passed away in 2004.

It is often suggested that those who accept the Genesis account of creation do so solely on faith, while those who accept the theory of Evolution do so on the basis of scientific evidence. That, in fact, Evolution can only be accepted on faith is clearly shown in a book written by Kerkut. He was a university professor who certainly would be classified as an evolutionist, and edited the Zoology division of the International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied Biology. He also wrote volume 4 of the Zoology division. It was titled Implications of Evolution and was published in 1960. In the introduction of that book, Kerkut characterized the typical undergraduate studying Evolution as no more open-minded, or intellectually sophisticated than the theology students who accepted doctrines and dogmas on the basis of someone's say so. Consider the following excerpt from Kerkut's book:

It is my thesis that many of the Church's worst features are still left embedded in present-day studies. Thus the serious undergraduate of the previous centuries was brought up on a theological diet from which he would learn to have faith and to quote authorities when he was in doubt. Intelligent understanding was the last thing required. The undergraduate of today is just as bad; he is still the same opinion-swallowing grub. He will gladly devour opinions and views that he does not properly understand in the hope that he may later regurgitate them during one of his examinations. Regardless of his subject, be it Engineering, Physics, English or Biology, he will have faith in theories that he only dimly follows and will call upon various authorities to support what he does not understand. In this he differs not one bit from the irrational theology student of the bygone age who would mumble his dogma and hurry through his studies in order to reach the peace and plenty of the comfortable living in the world outside. But what is worse, the present-day student claims to be different from his predecessor in that he thinks scientifically and despises dogma, and when challenged he says in defence, "After all, one has to accept something, or else it takes a very long time to get anywhere."

    Well, let us see the present-day student "getting somewhere." For some years now I have tutored undergraduates on various aspects of Biology. It is quite common during the course of conversation to ask the student if he knows the evidence for Evolution. This usually evokes a faintly superior smile at the simplicity of the question, since it is an old war-horse set in countless examinations. "Well, sir, there is the evidence from palaeontology, comparative anatomy, embryology, systematics and geographical distributions," the student will say in a nursery-rhyme jargon, sometimes even ticking off the words on his fingers. He would then sit and look fairly complacent and wait for a more difficult question to follow, such as the nature of the evidence for Natural Selection. Instead I would continue on with Evolution.

    "Do you think that the Evolutionary Theory is the best explanation yet advanced to explain animal interrelationships?" I would ask.

    "Why, of course sir," would be the reply in some amazement at my question. "There is nothing else, except for the religious explanation held by some Fundamentalist Christians, and I gather, sir, that these views are no longer held by the more up-to-date Churchmen."

    "So," I would continue, "you believe in Evolution because there is no other theory?"

    "Oh, no, sir," would be the reply, "I believe in it because of the evidence I just mentioned."

    "Have you read any book on the evidence for Evolution?" I would ask.

    "Yes, sir," and here he would mention the names of authors of a popular school textbook, "and of course, sir, there is that book by Darwin, The Origin of Species."

    "Have you read this book?" I asked.

    "Well, not all through, sir."

    "About how much?"

    "The first part, sir."

    "The first fifty pages?"

    "Yes, sir, about that much; maybe a bit less."

    "I see, and that has given you your firm understanding of Evolution?"

    "Yes, sir."

    "Well, now, if you really understand an argument you will be able to indicate to me not only the points in favour of the argument but also the most telling points against it."

    "I suppose so, sir."

    "Good. Please tell me, then, some of the evidence against the theory of Evolution."

    "Against what, sir?"

    "The theory of Evolution."

    "But there isn't any, sir."

    Here the conversation would take on a more strained atmosphere. The student would look at me as if I was playing a very unfair gone. It would be clearly quite against the rules to ask for evidence against a theory when he had learnt up everything in favour of the theory. He also would take it rather badly when I suggest that he is not being very scientific in his outlook if he swallows the latest scientific dogma and, when questioned, just repeats parrot fashion the views of the current Archbishop of Evolution. In fact he would be behaving like certain of those religious students he affects to despise. He would be taking on faith what he could not intellectually understand and when questioned would appeal to authority, the authority of a "good book" which in this case was The Origin of Species."

The main point of Kerkut's book is to point out that to accept the theory of Evolution, one must accept the validity of seven assumptions which have not been and cannot be proven:

     (1) The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred.
     (2) The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.
     The other assumptions all follow from the second one.
     (3) The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.
     (4) The fourth assumption is that the Protozoa gave rise to the Metazoa.
     (5) The fifth assumption is that the various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.
     (6) The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.
     (7) The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and the reptiles to the birds and mammals. Sometimes this is expressed in other words, i.e. that the modern amphibia and reptiles had a common ancestral stock, and so on.

    The first point that I should like to make is that these seven assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification. They assume that a certain series of events has occurred in the past. Thus though it may be possible to mimic some of these events under present-day conditions, this does not mean that these events must therefore have taken place in the past. All that it shows is that it is possible for such a change to take place. Thus to change a present-day reptile into a mammal, though of great interest, would not show the way in which the mammals did arise. Unfortunately we cannot bring about even this change; instead we have to depend upon limited circumstantial evidence for our assumptions, and it is now my intention to discuss the nature of this evidence.

Kerkut then discusses the problems with and alternatives to these assumptions, and finally concludes:

... the evidence that supports [the General Theory of Evolution] is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.

Our point is simply this: One who believes the Bible need not feel intimidated by claims that all the evidence is on the side of Evolution or that Evolution is "science". As Kerkut makes clear in his book, the General Theory of Evolution cannot be proven, can only be accepted on faith, and there is much evidence which runs counter to it.

Finally, we must take note of Kerkut's belittling reference to an "appeal to authority, the authority of a 'good book'." So far as The Origin of Species is concerned, we appreciate his sentiment. But his intent, of course, is to make an appeal to the authority of this book parallel to an appeal to the Bible. We would simply observe that any appeal to the authority a of book written by man must be made tentatively, for men are fallible. But if the Bible is from God, then an appeal to it is made with assurance. Kerkut presupposes the Bible is not from God. But "intelligent understanding" will lead one to conclude that it must be from God. So in the final analysis, the Christian's faith is in God, whereas the evolutionist's faith is in man.