[Home] [Site map] [Updates] [My position: Progressive Mediate Creation] [My CED list message my reasons `for the belief that man and ape share a common ancestor']
Perhaps the major reason for Evolution's success is that it has been able to control the definition of "evolution" as "common ancestry" and therefore its alternative, Creation, as "not common ancestry." Therefore, if a creationists accepts that evolutionist defintion, then all an evolutionists has to do is provide evidence for common ancestry and the evolutionist wins the argument. But if the"the standard scientific theory" of evolution is that "human beings" and everything else "have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'" (Shermer, M.B., "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind ," Scientific American, February 2002. My emphasis), then evolutionists must show two things, not one. The evolutionist must not only that: 1) "human beings" and everything else "have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life" (i.e. universal common ancestry); but also 2) that "God had no part in this process" (i.e. always and everywhere a fully naturalistic mechanism). If God supernaturally intervened at any point in the process that produced "human beings," from the origin of the Universe, including the origin of life, to the origin of Man, then "evolution," as so defined by the "the standard scientific theory" of evolution, is wrong. In other words, if God had any part in the process that produced "human beings," then it was a form of Creation not Evolution!
Why I (a Creationist) Accept Common Ancestry (Not Evolution)
Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biol.)
What I mean by "common ancestry" is universal common ancestry, that all organisms that have ever lived, including humans, share a common ancestor and are therefore all related to each other by common descent.1
However, I do not mean (or accept) that common ancestry is evolution because I maintain that the mechanism was not fully naturalistic (see below). [top]
My original position on common ancestry was that I did not accept it. I realised that there was strong evidence for the unity of all life:
"An artist uses brush strokes, composition, style, and coloring that are often unique to that artist. The chance combination of these features by any other painter would be most unlikely. The similarity of highly complex features is strong evidence that they derive from a common source, since similarity is unlikely to result just by chance. There must be some common cause for the similarity. In this case the common cause is the original artist. This same reasoning applies to life. Diverse life forms display strikingly similar characters. For example, there is the nearly universal use of: DNA as the carrier of inheritance; the expression of that information as proteins via an RNA intermediate; the genetic code; the use of left-handed amino acids in proteins; and the bi-layered phosphatide construction of cell membranes. [Wilson, J.H., "The Origin of Life," in Wilson, D.B., ed., "Did the Devil Make Darwin do it?," Iowa State University Press: Ames IO, 1983, pp.87- 90] The biochemical similarities extend to proteins and to the cellular metabolism of the most diverse living beings. Adenosine tri-phosphate (ATP), biotin, riboflavin, hemes, pyridoxin, vitamins B12 and K, and folic acid are used in metabolic processes everywhere. [Dobzhansky, T.G., "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," in Zetterberg J.P., ed., "Evolution Versus Creationism," Oryx Press: Phoenix AZ, 1983, p.23] Furthermore, amino acid sequences of common proteins are similar among different organisms. For example, the protein cytochrome-c contains 104 amino acids, yet 64 of these are identical between yeast and horses. [Gould, S.J., Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., "A View Of Life," Benjamin/Cummings: Menlo Park CA, 1981, p.680] Even more impressive is a protein, appropriately called ubiquitin, present in all organisms, tissues, and cells so far studied - and it has an absolutely identical amino acid sequence in each case. [Margulis, L. & Sagan, D., "Origins of Sex:: Three Billion Years of Genetic Recombination," Yale University Press: New Haven CT, 1986, p.119] These similarities have been uncovered by the research of twentieth-century molecular biology, yet the unity of life was recognized long ago. Darwin (and Buffon nearly a century before Darwin [Edey & Johanson, 1989, p.14]) saw the unity based on evidence from morphology, behavior, ecology, mimicry, and mutualism. There is a crisscrossing web of such factors uniting smaller groups together into a larger and larger whole.and I knew that humans and chimps shared about 99 percent of their proteins and genes:[P]lants and animals, most remote in the scale of nature, are bound together by a web of complex relations. (Darwin, 1859, pp.124-125)Before Darwin, the predominant creationist theory was the Great Chain of Being. Though it is no longer tenable, it did have some important insights. Central to that theory was a recognition that all life is linked together by a chain of similarities. Even ancients such as Aristotle (350 B.C.) were aware of the vast unity of life. The unity of life could not possibly result from chance, nor from multiple sources, nor from multiple designers acting independently. Life must have come from some single common source. Evolutionists say "common descent." Creationists say "common designer." Life could have looked like an art gallery with many artists - yet it does not. This is not happenstance. It is premeditated design. It is a major factor in message theory. All life is linked together by a complex web of similarities. Life looks like the product of a single designer. (This single designer can be a single being or design team.) Message theory says nature was intentionally constructed to look this way." (ReMine, W.J., "The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message Theory," St. Paul Science: Saint Paul MN, 1993, pp.18-19. Emphasis original)
"Both estimates indicate that the average human protein is more than 99 percent identical in amino acid sequence to its chimpanzee homolog ... the nucleic acid sequence difference of human and chimpanzee DNA is about 1.1 percent." (King, M.-C. & Wilson, A.C., "Evolution at Two Levels in Humans and Chimpanzees," Science, 11 April 1975, Vol. 188, p.112)but I interpreted this as the result of common design, not common descent:
"Notice, this is exactly what we would expect as evidence of good creative design and engineering practice. Suppose you were in the bridge-building business, and you were interviewing a couple of engineers to determine whom you wanted to hire. One fellow says, `Each bridge I build will be entirely different from all others.' Proudly he tells you `Each bridge will be made using different materials and different processes so that no one will ever be able to see any similarity between the bridges I build. ` How does that sound? Now the next fellow comes in and says, `Well, out back in your yard I saw a supply of I-beams and various sizes of heavy bolts and cables. We can use those to span either a river or the San Francisco Bay. I can adapt the same parts and processes to meet a wide variety of needs. You'll be able to see a theme and a variation in my bridge building and others can see the stamp of authorship in our work.' Which fellow would you hire?" (Parker, G.E., "Creation: the Facts of Life," Master Book Publishers: San Diego CA, 1980, p.26).
I later realised that this was a fallacy of false dilemma because there are not two, but three possibilities: 1. design without descent (e.g. separate creations); 2. descent without design (e.g. Darwinism, atheistic evolution); and 3. design with descent (e.g. theistic evolution, mediate creation-my position now).
I therefore argued vigorously against common ancestry on the Internet for about a year, until in 1995 I was convinced by the evidence and a series of `coincidences' that common ancestry was true.2[top]
An important part of my full acceptance of common ancestry was when I came to see that it is not necessarily evolution. The following are some quotes which helped me see this. [top]
Charles Darwin in his Origin of Species acknowledged that common ancestry was not enough, but what he needed to show was a fully naturalistic mechanism:
"In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and coadaptation which justly excites our admiration." (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.18. My emphasis). [top]
Darwin was able to write his Origin of Species (1859) without even using the word "evolution" in it, instead using the more accurate and neutral term, "descent with modification":
"To begin with a paradox: Darwin, Lamarck, and Haeckel-the greatest nineteenth-century evolutionists of England, France, and Germany, respectively-did not use the word evolution in the original editions of their great works. Darwin spoke of `descent with modification,' Lamarck of `transformisme.' Haeckel preferred `Transmutations-Theorie' or `Descendenz-Theorie.' ... Darwin did use evolve in this vernacular sense-in fact it is the very last word of his book. `There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.' .... Darwin shunned evolution as a description for his descent with modification .... Evolution entered the English language as a synonym for `descent with modification' through the propaganda of Herbert Spencer." (Gould S.J., "Darwin's Dilemma," in "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History," [1978], Penguin: London, Reprint, 1991, pp.34-37) [top]
Michael Denton's observation that common ancestry was compatible with many philosophies of nature, including some forms of creationism:
"It is true that both genuine homologous resemblance, that is, where the phenomenon has a clear genetic and embryological basis (which as we have seen above is far less common than is often presumed), and the hierarchic patterns of class relationships are suggestive of some kind of theory of descent. But neither tell us anything about how the descent or evolution might have occurred, as to whether the process was gradual or sudden, or as to whether the causal mechanism was Darwinian, Lamarckian, vitalistic or even creationist. Such a theory of descent is therefore devoid of any significant meaning and equally compatible with almost any philosophy of nature." (Denton, M.J., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," Burnett Books: London, 1985, pp.154-155. My emphasis). [top]
Phillip E. Johnson's concession that "God ... might have chosen to work through a natural evolutionary3
process":
"I am a philosophical theist and a Christian. I believe that a God exists who could create out of nothing if He wanted to do so, but who might have chosen to work through a natural evolutionary process instead. I am not a defender of creation-science, and in fact I am not concerned in this book with addressing any conflicts between the Biblical accounts and the scientific evidence." (Johnson, P.E., "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, p.14. My emphasis) [top]
Phillip E. Johnson's point that creationists can "believe that ... simple forms of life evolved gradually to become ... humans4:
"Clearing up confusion requires a careful and consistent use of terms. In this book `creation-science' refers to young-earth, six-day special creation. `Creationism' means belief in creation in a more general sense. Persons who believe that the earth is billions of years old and that simple forms of life evolved gradually to become more complex forms including humans, are `creationists' if they believe that a supernatural Creator not only initiated the process but in some meaningful sense controls it in furtherance of a purpose. As we shall see evolution' (in contemporary scientific usage) excludes not just creation- science but creationism in the broad sense.' (Johnson, P.E., "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., Second Edition, 1993, p.4. My emphasis)
"If an omnipotent Creator exists He might have created things instantaneously in a single week or through gradual evolution over billions of years. He might have employed means wholly inaccessible to science, or mechanisms that are at least in part understandable through scientific investigation. The essential point of creation has nothing to do with the timing or the mechanism the Creator chose to employ, but with the element of design or purpose. In the broadest sense, a `creationist' is simply a person who believes that the world (and especially mankind) was designed, and exists for a purpose." (Johnson, P.E., "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, p.115. My emphasis)
"In a broader sense, however, a creationist is simply a person who believes in the existence of a Creator who brought about the existence of the world and its living inhabitants in furtherance of a purpose. Whether the process of creation took a single week or billions of years is relatively unimportant from a philosophical or theological standpoint. Creation by gradual processes over geological ages may create problems for biblical interpretation, but it creates none for the basic principle of theistic religion. And creation in this broad sense, according to a 1991 Gallup poll, is the creed of 87 percent of Americans. (Johnson, P.E., "What is Darwinism?" in "Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law & Culture," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL, 1998, p.23. My emphasis) [top]
Christian philosopher Del Ratzsch's point that common ancestry does not preclude supernatural intervention in the ancestral chain:
"Suppose contemporary evolutionary theory had blind chance built into it so firmly that there was simply no way of reconciling it with any sort of divine guidance. It would still be perfectly possible for theists to reject that theory of evolution and accept instead a theory according to which natural processes and laws drove most of evolution, but God on occasion abridged those laws and inserted some crucial mutation into the course of events. Even were God to intervene directly to suspend natural law and inject essential new genetic material at various points in order to facilitate the emergence of new traits and, eventually, new species, that miraculous and deliberate divine intervention would by itself leave unchallenged such key theses of evolutionary theory as that all species derive ultimately from some common ancestor. Descent with genetic intervention is still descent-it is just descent with nonnatural elements in the process." (Ratzsch, D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1996, pp.187-188. My emphasis) [top]
Leading Darwinist, Richard Dawkins, quoting Darwin, pointed out that if God supernaturally intervened at any stage in common descent then it was not evolution at all":
"Darwin ... wrote in a letter to Sir Charles Lyell, the leading geologist of his day: `If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish...I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.' [Darwin C.R., letter to C. Lyell, October 11, 1859, in Darwin F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin", John Murray: London, 1888, Vol. II, p.210]. This is no petty matter. In Darwin's view, the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it is worth, it is also the whole point of this book. For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, pp.248-249. Emphasis in original.)Another leading Darwinist, Daniel Dennett, agrees with this, adding that it "It made a nonsense of the central point of evolution" if "evolution ... had to be helped over the jumps by God":
"Darwin often, and correctly, harped on the claim that evolution could only be gradual (at best, you might say). As Dawkins (1986a, p. 145) says, `For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all. It made a nonsense of the central point of evolution." (Dennett, D.C., "Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life," [1995], Penguin: London, 1996, p.290. My emphasis)That is, if God created by supernatural intervention at any stage in common descent. then it would then be creation not evolution:
"If we want to postulate a deity capable of engineering all the organized complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution, that deity must already have been vastly complex in the first place. The creationist, whether a naive Bible-thumper or an educated bishop, simply postulates an already existing being of prodigious intelligence and complexity. If we are going to allow ourselves the luxury of postulating organized complexity without offering an explanation, we might as well make a job of it and simply postulate the existence of life as we know it! In short, divine creation, whether instantaneous or in the form of guided evolution, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, pp.316-317. My emphasis) [top]
Leading atheist Michael Shermer bemoans the fact that only "a paltry 12 percent" of Americans "accept the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process" (my emphasis)
"Facing such a reality, perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe `God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so'; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process'; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'" (Shermer, M.B., "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind," Scientific American, February 2002. My emphasis) [top]
Evolutionists regard those who accept common ancestry as creationists, if they don't accept that the mechanism was fully naturalistic. For example, leading Intelligent Design theorist, Michael Behe accepts "that all organisms share a common ancestor", but he is regarded by evolutionists as a creationist, because he argues that natural processes alone were insufficient to explain life:
"Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it." (Behe, M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," [1996], Free Press: New York NY, 10th Anniversary Edition, 2006, pp.5-6. My emphasis)Evolutionist philosopher Robert Pennock regards Behe as a "creationist" even though Pennock realised that Behe accepts common descent:
"Intelligent-design theorist Michael Behe has said that he has no reason to doubt the truth of common descent, but he does doubt the power of natural selection to shape the full range of biological complexities. In Darwin's Black Box he claims to have found a number of such "complex organs" to prove his case. This is clearly an important claim. ... So what does Behe have to say? We already have a fairly clear idea given our earlier discussions of critical passages from Darwin's Black Box Behe hopes to show the impotence of Darwinism by pointing out purportedly profound explanatory gaps. Trying to do this is nothing new. ICR's Duane Gish has tried to do this by pointing out gaps in the fossil record. ... Indeed, as we saw, almost every creationist attack proceeds in the same way, by citing something that Darwinism supposedly cannot explain." (Pennock, R.T., "Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism," The MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1999, Fourth printing, p.264. My emphasis)Behe (along with others who accept common ancestry, e.g. "Michael Denton" and "Alvin Plantinga") is included by Pennock in the category of "intelligent design creationism":
"A more powerful movement is gaining strength within the Tower and is beginning to take the lead in the battles against evolution in the field. This is the group of creationists that advocates `theistic science' and promotes what they call -intelligent-design theory.' Creationism-watchers have called the advance guard of intelligent design creationism (IDC) the `upper tier' of creationists because, unlike their earlier counterparts, they carry advanced degrees from major institutions, often hold positions in higher education, and are typically more knowledgeable, more articulate, and far more savvy. There are a dozen or two names that appear most frequently in association with the ideas of intelligent-design and theistic science, but because this variation of creationism is still relatively new and its advocates have not all published or explicitly identified themselves under these labels it is not yet clear whom to list among its leaders. Walter Bradley, Jon Buell, William Lane Craig, Percival Davis, Michael Denton, Mark Hartwig, J.P. Moreland, Hugh Ross, and Charles B. Thaxton are important figures. Another is John Angus Campbell, a University of Memphis rhetorician, and he mentions Nancy Pearcey, Del Ratzsch, Tom Woodward, John Mark Reynolds, Walter ReMine, and Robert Koons (who is a colleague of mine in the philosophy department at The University of Texas at Austin), as being among the `key players' of `our movement.'' Among the more well- known names to sign on to the crusade are Michael Behe (Lehigh University) and Dean Kenyon (San Francisco State University) on the scientific side, and Alvin Plantinga and Peter van Inwagen (both of Notre Dame) on the philosophical side. Perhaps more significant, however, are the younger members of the group-William Dembski, Paul Nelson, Stephen C. Meyer, and Jonathan Wells. These `four horsemen' have dedicated their lives to the creationist cause and have been collecting multiple graduate degrees (Dembski in mathematics, philosophy and theology; Meyer and Nelson in philosophy; and Wells in religious studies and molecular and cellular biology) so they will be fully armored and ready to ride forth." (Pennock, R.T., "Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism," The MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1999, Fourth printing, p.29. My emphasis)Another leading evolutionist, Eugenie Scott, also calls Behe "an intelligent design `creationist'" even though she is aware that Behe has stated that he has "no reason to doubt common descent" and thinks that "evolution occurred, but was guided by God":
"[Eugenie] Scott refers to me as an intelligent design `creationist`,' even though I clearly write in my book `Darwin's Black Box' (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and `have no reason to doubt common descent`. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think `evolution occurred, but was guided by God.' Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier's in the journal `Cell': `More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human' [DeRosier, D.J., Cell, Vol. 93, 1998, p.17]. Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively correct?" (Behe, M.J., "Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism," Science, dEbate, 7 July 2000. My emphasis)What makes Behe a creationist in the eyes of leading evolutionists is that he claims that "the materialist mechanism" is inadequate to explain life's "information" and "irreducible complexity" and therefore there must have been "an intelligent designer guiding the process":
"Further on that, because it is such a crucial point: my colleague Michael Behe in his well- known book Darwin's Black Box says he has nothing against common ancestry; there may be common ancestry from the first bacterium up to present-day organisms (or there may not be; he accepts that as a possibility). What he says is that you need an information source to produce the irreducible complexity, and the materialist mechanism can't do that. There has to be an intelligent designer guiding the process. Is Behe a theistic evolutionist or a creationist? Is he a friend of science or an enemy of science? In these terms, the answer is that he is an enemy of science. Why? You could very easily call his view theistic evolution. What makes Behe a heretic, rather than a member of the team, is that he says there is evidence of the need for intelligence. You see, that crosses the faith/reason boundary and brings the intelligent designer into the realm of things that can be seen by evidence, that objective observers can evaluate, instead of the realm of purely subjective belief. That is why he is on my side rather than their side, whereas somebody else whose position sounds superficially the same would be clearly on the other side." (Johnson, P.E., "Evolution and the Curriculum: A Conversation with Phillip Johnson and Gregg Easterbrook," Ethics and Public Policy Center, February 2000, No. 4. My emphasis) [top]
Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna (who is reportedly close to Pope Benedict XVI) has recently drawn a distinction between "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry" which "might be true" and "evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" which "is not":
"The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things. Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neoDarwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science." (Schönborn C., "Finding Design in Nature," The New York Times July 7, 2005. My emphasis) [top]
Dennett conceded that there is no way to scientifically differentiate between the effect of supernatural intervention by an Intelligent Designer (e.g. God) and natural causes:
"Indeed, all the biologists I have queried on this point have agreed with me that there are no sure marks of natural, as opposed to artificial, selection. In chapter 5, we traded in the concept of strict biological possibility and impossibility for a graded notion of biological probability, but even in its terms, it is not clear how one could grade organisms as "probably" or "very probably" or "extremely probably" the products of artificial selection. Should this conclusion be viewed as a terrible embarrassment to the evolutionists in their struggle against creationists? One can imagine the headlines: "Scientists Concede: Darwinian Theory Cannot Disprove Intelligent Design!" It would be foolhardy, however, for any defender of neo-Darwinism to claim that contemporary evolution theory gives one the power to read history so finely from present data as to rule out the earlier historical presence of rational designers-a wildly implausible fantasy, but a possibility after all." (Dennett, D.C., "Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and The Meanings of Life," [1995], Penguin: London, 1996, reprint, pp.317-318. My emphasis) [top]
Three examples, two from the Bible and one from science, make it clear that common ancestry and supernatural intervention are not mutually exclusive:
The first example is Eve. If Adam was descended by a processes of reproduction from a hominid ancestor, which in turn shared a common ancestor with all other organisms, and Eve was specially created from Adam's side (Gen. 2:20-22), then all her descendants would share a common ancestry with all other life, but it would not be by a fully naturalistic process of parent-child reproduction.5
The second example is Jesus. Christian theology maintains that Jesus was fully human and therefore on his mother's side, Jesus shared a common ancestor with all humans. But according to the New Testament, on his father's side, Jesus was born of a virgin, the result of a special supernatural intervention by God (Lk 1:35; Mat. 1:18).
The third example is Dolly the cloned sheep. She was the offspring of one ewe (which provided the cell nucleus) and another ewe (which provided the cell, minus a nucleus), and there was no male involved.6: And Dolly has gone on to bear her own offspring.7
So Dolly and her offspring have a common ancestry with all other sheep, even though there was human intelligent designer intervention in the process.
The following is an outline of the Biblical evidence for common ancestry of humans with animals:
The Bible nowhere states that man was not created via common ancestry. [top]
"But, on the other hand, the Scriptures do not disclose the method of man's creation. Whether man's physical system is or is not derived, by natural descent, from the lower animals, the record of creation does not inform us. As the command `Let the earth bring forth living creatures ` (Gen. 1:24) does not exclude the idea of mediate creation, through natural generation, so the forming of man `of the dust of the ground' (Gen. 2:7) does not in itself determine whether the creation of man's body was mediate or immediate. We may believe that man sustained to the highest preceding brute the same relation which the multiplied bread and fish sustained to the five loaves and two fishes (Mat. 14:19), or which the wine sustained to the water which was transformed at Cana (John 2:7-10), or which the multiplied oil sustained to the original oil in the O.T. miracle (2 K. 4:14). The `dust, ` before the breathing of the spirit into it, may have been animated dust." (Strong, A.H., "Systematic Theology," [1907], Judson Press: Valley Forge PA, 1967, reprint, p.465. My emphasis).
"What strikes one about the Jewish description of creation and early man, compared with pagan cosmogonies, is the lack of interest in the mechanics of how the world and its creatures came into existence, which led the Egyptian and Mesopotamian narrators into such weird contortions. The Jews simply assume the pre-existence of an omnipotent God, who acts but is never described or characterized, and so has the force and invisibility of nature itself: it is significant that the first chapter of Genesis, unlike any other cosmogony of antiquity, fits perfectly well, in essence, with modern scientific explanations of the origin of the universe, not least the 'Big Bang' theory." (Johnson, P., "A History of the Jews," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, 1987, p.8. My emphasis)
In the two places in Genesis describing the making of man, the first (Gen. 1:27) does not say how man was made:
Gen. 1:26-27 "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
and the second (Gen. 2:7) which does, cannot be literal otherwise one would have to maintain that God literally breathes:
Gen. 2:7 "the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." [top]
Man's uniqueness in the Bible is not how or from what he was created but that man uniquely was made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1; 9:6; 1Cor 11:7; Col 3:10). [top]
After the ex nihilo creation of the raw materials of the universe in Gen. 1:1, the pattern is that of mediate creation, from existing materials:
"The biblical record does not settle the uniqueness, antiquity, and unity of the human race by a central appeal to morphological considerations. The disjunction between man and the animals, of the sub-Adamic forms and the Adam form of life, in Genesis, takes place with the formation of a creature under moral command. Man's basic distinction is that he is divinely endowed with the imago Dei, through the specially inbreathed breath of life. The Bible knows man as from the beginning intended for fellowship with God, for rational-moral-spiritual discrimination, for social responsibility for dominion over the earth and the animals. The record moves swiftly, in biblical theology, from the primal Adam, who is already a `cultured gentleman,' to the beginnings of society and civilization. ... Perhaps we are not to rule out dogmatically the possibility that the dust of man's origin may have been animated, since the animals before man appear to have been fashioned from the earth (Gen. 1:24). The Bible does not explicate man's physical origin in detail. The fact that, after Genesis 1:1 the narrator deals with a mediate creation, which involves the actualizing of potentialities latent in the original creation, should caution us against the one-sided invocation of divine transcendence." (Henry, C.F.H., "Science and Religion," in Henry, C.F.H., ed., "Contemporary Evangelical Thought: A Survey," [1957] Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1968, reprint, p.282. My emphasis) [top]
Both the animals and man are:
"The two 'tablets' of the beginning each teach in their own way the solidarity of mankind with the animals. Mankind arrives on the sixth day, as do all the various animals, and God appoints their food to all at the same time. In the paradise narrative, God models or fashions from the ground both the man and the animals that will pass by before him (2:7, 19) Without going as far as St Francis of Assisi in calling the beasts our brothers, the Bible informs mankind of his links with the animal kingdom." (Blocher, H., "In The Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis," [1979], InterVarsity Press: Leicester UK, 1984, pp.82-83) [top]
The animals and man are described by the same Hebrew words chay nephesh that English Bibles translate in Gen. 2:7 as "living being/living soul" (NIV/AV) for man; and for water animals in Gen. 1:21 as "living...thing"/living creatures" (NIV), and for land animals in Gen. 1:24 as "living creatures" (NIV & AV):
"This unity already finds expression in the classical passage of the Old Testament-the first passage to indicate the complex nature of man-namely, Gen. 2:7: `And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life- and man became a living soul.' The whole passage deals with man: `God formed man...and man became a living soul.' .... The word `soul' in this passage does not have the meaning which we usually ascribe to it-a meaning rather foreign to the Old Testament -but denotes an animated being, and is a description of man as a whole. The very same Hebrew term, nephesh chayyah (living soul or being) is also applied to the animals in Gen. 1:21,24,30." (Berkhof, L., "Systematic Theology," [1949], Banner of Truth: London, 1966, reprint, pp.192-193)
God breathing into man's nostrils the breath of life (Heb. neshamah chay) in Gen. 2:7 is later used in Gen. 7:22 of both man and land animals: "Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died":
Gen. 2:7 "the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
Gen. 7:21-22, "Every living thing that moved on the earth perished--birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died."
"Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath ; man has no advantage over the animal" (Ecc 3:19).
'The distinction between man and the beasts is qualitative, not substantive. It is not that man has or is a soul, spirit, heart, mind,` will, affective being, but that man's non-material being is a person created in the image of God. When we read in Gen. 2:7 that God breathed into man `the breath of life, and man became a living soul,' neither the phrase `breath of life' nor `living soul,' distinguishes man from the animals, for in Gen. 7:21, 22, we read, `And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man; all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died:' Here both man and beast are referred to as having `the breath of life:' In these two instances the same Hebrew words are used. In Genesis 2:7, the phrase referring to man is nishemath chayyim, `breath of life:' In Gen. 7:22 the Hebrew words referring to the animals and man are nishemath ruach chayyim, `breath of spirit of life:' The phrase, `breath of life' translating ruach chayyim, `spirit of life,' frequently refers to animals as well as man (See Gen. 6:17; 7:15). The phrase, `living soul,' nephesh chayyah, used of man in Gen. 2:7, very commonly refers to the animals. See, for example, the Hebrew text of Gen. 1:21, 24, 2:19, where these words are translated `living creature.'" (Buswell, J.O., Jr., "A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion," [1962], Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Vol. I, 1968, Second printing, pp.241-242. My emphasis) [top]
Ecc. 3:21, "Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"The account of Jesus driving demons which were possessing men into pigs, presupposes a psychic similarity between man and at least the mammals:
Mat. 8:28-32, "When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. `What do you want with us, Son of God?' they shouted. `Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?' Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. The demons begged Jesus, `If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.' He said to them, `Go!' So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water." [top]
The late Carl F.H. Henry (leading evangelical Christian philosopher-theologian, and founding editor of Christianity Today) cautioned, "Perhaps we are not to rule out dogmatically the possibility that the dust of man's origin may have been animated..." (see above).
Derek Kidner (evangelical Christian theologian and Bible commentator) observed, "Nothing requires that the creature into which God breathed human life should not have been of a species prepared in every way for humanity...":
"Man in Scripture is much more than homo faber, the maker of tools: he is constituted man by God's image and breath nothing less. It follows that Scripture and science may well differ in the boundaries they would draw round early humanity: the intelligent beings of a remote past, whose bodily and cultural remains give them the clear status of 'modern man' to the anthropologist, may yet have been decisively below the plane of life which was established in the creation of Adam. If, as the text of Genesis would by no means disallow, God initially shaped man by a process of evolution it would follow that a considerable stock of near-humans preceded the first true man, and it would be arbitrary to picture these as mindless brutes. Nothing requires that the creature into which God breathed human life should not have been of a species prepared in every way for humanity, with already a long history of practical intelligence, artistic sensibility and the capacity for awe and reflection." (Kidner, D., "Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale Press: London, 1967, pp.28-29. My emphasis)John Stott (leading evangelical Christian theologian and Bible commentator): "Adam, then, was a special creation of God, whether God formed him literally 'from the dust of the ground' and then 'breathed into his nostrils the breath of life', or whether this is the biblical way of saying that he was created out of an already existing hominid":
"But surely the human fossil and skeleton record indicates that the genus homo existed hundreds of thousands of years before the New Stone Age? Yes. Homo sapiens (modern) is usually traced back to about 100,000 years ago, and Homo sapiens (archaic) to about half a million years ago, Homo erectus to about 1.8 million years ago, and Homo habilis even to two million years ago. Moreover, Homo habilis was already making stone tools in East and South Africa; Homo erectus was making wooden tools as well and living in caves and camps, while Homo sapiens (especially the European Stone Age sub-species Neanderthal man), although still a hunter-gatherer, was beginning to paint, carve and sculpt, and even to care for the sick and bury the dead. But were these species of Homo 'human' in the biblical sense, created in the image of God, endowed with rational moral and spiritual faculties which enabled them to know and love their Creator? Ancient skeletons cannot answer this question; the evidence they supply is anatomical rather than behavioural. Even signs of cultural development do not prove that those involved were authentically human, that is, God-like. The likelihood is that they were all pre-Adamic hominids, still Homo sapiens and not yet Homo divinus, if we may so style Adam. Adam, then, was a special creation of God, whether God formed him literally 'from the dust of the ground' and then 'breathed into his nostrils the breath of life', or whether this is the biblical way of saying that he was created out of an already existing hominid. The vital truth we cannot surrender is that, though our bodies are related to the primates, we ourselves in our fundamental identity are related to God." (Stott, J.R.W., "The Message of Romans: God's Good News for the World", [1994], Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, 2002, p.164. My emphasisBilly Graham, (the world's greatest Christian evangelist): "I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man":
"Oh, I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the scriptures many times and we've tried to make the scriptures say things that they weren't meant to say, and I think we have made a mistake by thinking that the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of redemption, and of course, I accept the creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe he created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point he took this person or this being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... I personally believe that it's just as easy to accept the fact that God took some dust and blew on it and out came a man as it is to accept the fact that God breathed upon man and he became a living soul and it started with some protoplasm and went right on up through the evolutionary process. Either way is by faith and whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God." (Billy Graham, in Frost, D., "Billy Graham in Conversation," Chivers Press, Bath UK, 2000, pp. 71-72. My emphasis) [top]
As leading evangelical theologian and historian, the late Professor F.F. Bruce explains, "Those [manuscripts] which share some peculiar feature of spelling or wording, or some common error, are probably related to one another and have a common archetype. ... these archetypes themselves are subjected to comparative study ... to reconstruct a provisional archetype from which the archetypes themselves are descended" to "arrive... as closely as we can to the [original] autographic text":
"The special character of the New Testament has given rise to special types of errors over and above those which are common in all manuscript copying. ... The study of these witnesses to the original text and the restoration by their means of the original text as nearly as it can be determined belong to the science of Textual Criticism. This is not, of course, a science which has to do specially with the New Testament or the Bible as a whole; it makes its contribution to all kinds of literature. In English literature it is a very necessary science in the study of the works of Shakespeare and the determining of his original text by the comparative study of the early editions. There are four principal stages in the work of the textual critic. First, he makes a study of such individual manuscripts as are available to him, correcting obvious slips and taking cognizance of what appear to be scribal alterations, whether accidental or deliberate. Next, he arranges these manuscripts in groups. Those which share some peculiar feature of spelling or wording, or some common error, are probably related to one another and have a common archetype. There are different ways of grouping manuscripts, according as their evident relation to one another is more or less close. Those whose mutual relation can be fairly precisely established are said to constitute a family. But a number of separate families, while they are diverse from one another in many respects, may have a sufficient number of significant features in common to suggest that they all represent one rather early textual type. In the third place, when the arranging of manuscripts in groups leads to the establishment of an archetype for each of the groups which have been distinguished, these archetypes themselves are subjected to comparative study in the hope that it may be possible to reconstruct a provisional archetype from which the archetypes themselves are descended; if this is achieved, then we have arrived as closely as we can to the autographic text." (Bruce F.F., "The Books and the Parchments: Some Chapters on the Transmission of the Bible," [1950], Pickering & Inglis: London, Third Edition, 1963, pp.178-179) [top]
The following lines of evidence and arguments lead me to accept the common ancestry of humans with animals:
"Now we could argue that in God's inscrutable purpose he placed that vitamin C synthesis look- alike gene in ... human DNA or we could admit the more obvious conclusion, that humans and primates ... share a common ancestor":
"Take for example New Testament manuscripts. When we find extant manuscripts that have inserted sentences or paragraphs (e.g., the concluding sentence in the Lord's Prayer) and compare them with other extant manuscripts that are otherwise identical, we do not conclude that these two manuscripts are completely independent in origin. We re-create the scenario that at some point in the manuscript history, a scribe either added or deleted the inserted text. All manuscripts deriving from that errant copy would also contain the error. One more example illustrates the same point and at the same time shows that if we take the evidence seriously, the evolutionary arguments extend even to human beings. Of all the mammals only guinea pigs and primates (including human beings) must have vitamin C in their diet. All the others have the biochemical machinery to make their own. This in itself suggests that the ancestral mammal had the vitamin C synthesis capability, but that the ancestral guinea pig and the ancestral primate lost that ability and passed that defect to its ancestors. The story becomes even more interesting when the powerful methods of molecular biology are used. It is possible to develop a DNA probe that uniquely recognizes the key gene that allows for vitamin C synthesis in animals that do make their own. When this probe is used to study the DNA of guinea pigs and human beings, the vitamin C gene is found. Further analysis shows that this gene is a pseudogene, i.e., it looks like a real gene, but it is not expressed due to a mutation in the gene itself or in the region of DNA that controls the expression of that gene. Now we could argue that in God's inscrutable purpose he placed that vitamin C synthesis look-alike gene in the guinea pig or human DNA or we could admit the more obvious conclusion, that humans and primates and other mammals share a common ancestor." (Gray, T.M.8, "The Mistrial of Evolution." A review of Phillip E. Johnson's Darwin on Trial, April 13, 1992).
The point of the vitamin C pseudogene evidence is that it is a tie-breaker between the two possible creationist/intelligent design positions: design without descent, i.e. separate ex nihilo and de novo creations; and design with descent (or descent with design), i.e. mediate creations:
"Here I will briefly summarize four very different approaches. Ex nihilo and de novo creation mean the creator formed the species out of nothing, or out of nonliving matter, respectively. The species were not formed as derivatives from preexisting species. ... An approach that requires slightly less intervention might be called descent with design. Here the evolutionary process is modified or guided along the way with exterior inputs. Design is injected into the process. .... An approach with even less intervention is the frontloaded creation idea. Here, all the design is injected into the first living cell (or cells), and the evolutionary process takes over from there. The potential for all the species is implicit in the first organism, and it is realized by the action of natural laws. Finally, there is design via secondary causes. Here there is no detectable injection of design. Design is not imputed all at the beginning or at discrete points along the way. Instead, the design is in the initial arrangement of matter and the action of natural laws." (Hunter, C.G., "Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion Over Science," Brazos Press: Grand Rapids MI, 2003, pp.124-125. Emphasis in original. Ellipses mine)That is because, "in the law courts ... cases of plagiarism or breach of copyright will be settled in the plaintiff's favour if it can be shown that the text (or whatever) is supposed to have been copied contains errors present in the original":
"Darwin could not possibly have predicted that the hereditary material (of which he knew nothing) would turn out to be littered with ... meaningless repeated sequences like the shared Alu sequences in apes and humans ... An interesting argument is that in the law courts (where proof `beyond reasonable doubt' is required), cases of plagiarism or breach of copyright will be settled in the plaintiff's favour if it can be shown that the text (or whatever) is supposed to have been copied contains errors present in the original. Similarly, in tracing the texts of ancient authors, the best evidence that two versions are copies one from another or from the same original is when both contain the same errors. A charming example is an intrusive colon within a phrase in two fourteenth-century texts of Euripides: one colon turned out to be a scrap of straw embedded in the paper, proving that the other text was a later copy. Shared pseudogenes, or shared Alu sequences, may have the same significance - like shared misprints they can have come about only by shared descent." (Patterson C., "Evolution," [1978], Cornell University Press: Ithaca NY, Second edition, 1999, p.117)As the old-Earth creationist Fischer explains, "It is one thing to suggest that God may have modeled our DNA along the same lines as lower animals.... It is quite another to assert that God also incorporated all the excess nonfunctioning baggage too"9:
"An examination of the human DNA molecule, the genetic blueprint of man, shows that many of the same sorts of genes and gene sequences are found in lower animals. Some creationists would say this is not surprising. Since man has many of the same physiological functions as lower animals, our DNA naturally would carry comparable information. Thus the argument has been made that any resemblances in DNA mean only that God used similar gene sequences to order similar functions. Although there may be a commonality of design, as the argument goes, that does not prove common descent. ... The case for common design but no common descent becomes suspect when the entire human DNA sequence is analyzed, and copying errors are found in the same places in the DNA of non-humans. In addition to genes that function normally, we have nonfunctioning genes as well, called `pseudogenes.' Our DNA sequence is a complicated set of instructions that appears to have a long history of replications, and therefore contains an abundance of pseudogenes. Humans have pseudogenes incorporated along the entire DNA sequence that can also be found in other animals, i.e., the chimpanzee and gorilla. It is one thing to suggest that God may have modeled our DNA along the same lines as lower animals, such that similarities are due to like genes ordering a protein sequence serving a like function. It is quite another to assert that God also incorporated all the excess nonfunctioning baggage too." (Fischer, D., "The Origins Solution: An Answer in the Creation- Evolution Debate," Fairway Press: Lima OH, 1996, pp.64-65)That is, "God incorporated all the excess nonfunctioning baggage" in each separate creation from scratch, to deliberately create an appearance of descent, that never actually happened. But this is the same `appearance of age' problem of Philip Gosse's Omphalos, which claimed (in effect) that each separate "object created bore false witness to past processes, which had never taken place" and of which his son Edward wrote, "atheists and Christians alike looked at it, and laughed, and threw it away":