For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
Robert Jastrow (1925-2008), God and the Astronomers, p. 116 (1978)
Hat tip to apologetics315.com
By Kenneth Samples
Part 6 of 12
The study of logic doesn’t teach you to think—people do that intuitively and naturally. Rather instruction in logic teaches you to order your thinking. Logic is typically defined as “the principles of correct reasoning.” Mastery of these principles helps a person to consistently order their thinking so they can arrive at truthful, rational conclusions. Known as the “father of logic,” famous Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC) was the first to systematize the principles of logic. He referred to logic as a “tool” or “instrument” that helps one arrive at truth.
Logic is used to prove (or verify) things through the use of arguments. (By arguments, I don’t mean verbal fights.) An argument consists of two essential parts: (1) a claim (or conclusion), and (2) support for the claim (or premises) in the form of reasons, evidence, or facts. A good argument (sound or cogent) requires that the premises genuinely support the conclusion—a necessary connection called an inferential relationship must exist. A breach in this relationship results in a breakdown or failure of the argument to prove the conclusion. Fallacies (errors in reasoning) describe various types of breakdowns in the premise(s)-conclusion relationship.
ARGUMENT = CLAIM + SUPPORT
Since the conclusion of an argument is only as good as the premises that support it, it’s critical that the premises genuinely backup the central claim being made. I came up with the following acrostic to serve as a guideline to help keep a person’s reasoning on the logical T-R-A-C-K:
True support: All premises must be factually true or intellectually acceptable. In some cases premises are generally accepted as true rather than actually demonstrated to be so.
Relevant support: The premises must be connected and readily applicable to the conclusion. Many informal fallacies fall into the irrelevant premise category.
Adequate support: The premises must provide enough support—sufficient in number, kind, and weight—to justify the conclusion. Sometimes one premise is enough, but other arguments require numerous premises.
Clear support: The premises must possess clarity, thus avoiding vagueness, ambiguity, and grammatical error. Thinking and speech should form a unity.
Knowledgeable support: The premises must qualify as knowledge (justified, true belief), avoiding unwarranted presumption and vulnerability to possible counter evidence.
Paying careful heed to the principles of logic makes our arguments and viewpoints rational and ultimately persuasive. It behooves us as Christians to excel in our thinking. Sound reasoning not only helps remove obstacles to faith in Jesus Christ, but it also—especially when combined with a winsome spirit—exemplifies Christian virtue. Careful thinking brings honor and glory to our Creator and Lord (Romans 12:2).
Remember, a mind made in the direct image of an infinite and eternal God (Genesis 1:26-27) is all the more a terrible thing to waste!
For more about the importance of logic and critical thinking, see my book A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test. For a great handbook in dealing with logical fallacies, see Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments by T. Edward Damer.
Click here for the original post.
By Kenneth Samples
Part 3 of 4
What is the best explanation for how the human soul comes into being?
The question of how God brought about the origin of the human soul involves deep mystery. For many, the theological doctrine that humans are made in the direct image and likeness of God (imago Dei: Genesis 1:26–27) raises profound inquiries about God’s own essence or being. It may be that at some level this question will remain unanswered—at least in this life.
Nevertheless two basic views concerning the origin of the human soul have been set forth in church history—traducianism and creationism. This article will briefly explore the position of traducianism whereas part four will examine creationism.
What is Traducianism?
Sometimes referred to as “generationism,” traducianism is the view that human beings derive both their bodies and souls from their parents through procreation. This perspective insists only Adam’s soul was created directly by God. All other human beings have their immaterial soul passed on through a spiritual–physical union or process.
Biblical and Theological Support for Traducianism
The Bible does not address the topic of the soul’s origin in any formal or explicit way. Therefore inferences and implications from Scripture must be carefully drawn and weighed accordingly.
Concerns and Criticisms of Traducianism
While containing theological strengths and weaknesses, traducianism remains a provocative and possible explanatory theory for the soul’s origin. Yet among theologically conservative Christians, traducianism remains the minority position.
Next week I’ll review the more popular position known as creationism.
Click here for the original post.
By Ryan Turner
The following is a paper that I wrote for seminary titled “Women as Model Disciples in the Gospel of Mark.” All of the Scripture references below come from the NKJV Bible.
Introduction
In the Gospel of Mark, women occupy a central portion in the mission and message of Jesus as examples of model disciples. Sometimes these examples are general, but sometimes they are specific. Generally, women are subjects of Jesus’ teaching about the kingdom and discipleship. They follow Him as part of the general multitudes and receive his teaching. Specifically, they have faith in His ability to perform miracles. They exhibit sacrifice in being willing to give up all of their possessions for others. They see the events of the crucifixion, burial and resurrection of Jesus. In fact, they are the first witnesses of the resurrected Jesus. Despite the various functions that women play in the Gospel of Mark, they frequently serve as models of discipleship in contrast to unbelieving men and women. Therefore, Mark uses the examples of women as model disciples to tie together the various parts of his Gospel into a unifying theme.
Women as General Followers of Jesus
Mark’s gospel contains a call to discipleship which includes not only men, but also women. Mark records, “Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins”, (Mk. 1:5). The simple fact that “all of the land of Judea” and “those from Jerusalem” went out for baptism indicates that there most likely were women receiving the baptism of John, who was a forerunner of the Messiah. Second, in the same chapter, when Jesus begins His ministry, He preaches in Galilee, “Repent, and believe in the gospel”, (Mk. 1:15; cf. Mk. 6:12). Due to this universal proclamation for Galileans, women definitely are to receive the gospel. Third, also in chapter 1, Mark records the popularity of Jesus when Simon states, “Everyone is looking for You”, (Mk. 1:37). Fourth, the crowd of people who give Jesus the triumphal entry into Jerusalem cry, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!”, (Mk. 11:9). Again, they emphasize the universal appeal of coming to Jesus. In this same passage, these people “spread their clothes on the road” indicating their submission and service to the Messiah (Mk. 11:8). Therefore, women are an integral part of the call of Jesus to discipleship.
Mark continues his theme of women as disciples of Jesus. In Mark 14:24, Jesus states, “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.” Finally, perhaps the climatic verse for this general call to discipleship is Jesus’ later statements in Mark 8:34-38, where He speaks to “the people” and “His disciples” about the cost of following Him. He states, “Whosoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it”, (Mk. 8:34-35). This crowd definitely consisted of women who are clearly a part of Jesus’ call to discipleship.
Women as Part of the Multitudes
As disciples of Jesus, women were often among the multitudes that followed Jesus and received his teaching. First, Mark records, “Then He went out again by the sea; and all the multitude came to Him, and He taught them”, (Mk. 2:13; cf. Mk. 5:21, 31; 7:33; 10:1; etc.). Second, He later notes the large numbers of people who came to Jesus, “Then the multitude came together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread” (Mk. 3:20). Third, when Jesus gives his parable of the Sower (4:3-9), the multitudes are present to hear his message (Mk. 4:1-2). In this same pericope, Jesus states, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”, (Mk. 4:9; cf. Mk. 4:23). Jesus indicates that whoever has ears should listen to his message, whether it is men or women. Fourth, many of the people from the city in the country of the Gadarenes came out to see Jesus after hearing of his ability to cast out demons (Mk. 5:14-15). Mark later records that “all marveled”, (Mk. 5:20). Sixth, Mark later records the heart that Jesus has for the people that followed Him. Jesus states, “I have compassion on the multitude, because they have now continued with Me three days and have nothing to eat. And if I send them away hungry to their own houses, they will faint on the way; for some of them have come from afar”, (Mk. 8:2-3). As a result of this compassion, Jesus feeds these five thousand people! Therefore, this miracle of Jesus feeding the five thousand illustrates the compassion and care that Jesus had for the multitudes, which generically contained women.
Women and Examples of Healing as Models of Discipleship
As a result of women being a part of the multitudes that followed Jesus and heard his teaching on discipleship, they saw miracles. These miracles occur in a number of instances. First, Simon’s wife was sick and Jesus responded and healed her. Mark records Jesus’ response to hearing the news of her sickness, “So He came and took her by the hand and lifted her up, and immediately the fever left her”, (Mk. 1:31). However, this healing illustrates a discipleship theme. After Simon’s wife is healed, “she served them”, (Mk. 1:31). Mark illustrates that out of gratefulness for being healed, she does what the greatest in the kingdom do: they serve! (cf. Mark 10:43-45) Second, Mark records about a woman who had an issue of blood and she spent all she had on physicians, only to get worse (Mk. 5:25-26). However, “When she heard about Jesus, she came behind Him in the crowd, and touched His garment”, (Mk. 5:27). She believed that Jesus could heal her if she only touched Him! In typical Markan fashion, Mark records, “Immediately the fountain of her blood was dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of the affliction”, (Mk. 5:29). Jesus immediately knew that something had happened, and He questioned who touched Him. In fear, the lady comes forward and “told Him the whole truth”, (Mk. 5:33). In response to her confession, Jesus states, “Daughter, your faith has made you well. Go in peace, and be healed of your affliction”, (Mk. 5:34). This detailed passage illustrates a couple of important facts about this woman. First, she had faith that Jesus could heal her, even if she only touched Him. Second, she told Him the truth, even if it would mean getting into trouble. Therefore, this passage again illustrates the importance of women as model disciples by virtues of faith and truth.
Click here for the full article.
Every time you smile at someone, it is an action of love, a gift to that person, a beautiful thing.
Mother Teresa (1910-1997)
New Research Raises Questions about Evolution, Supports Intelligent Design
While working for Procter & Gamble, I was involved in a project that required me to travel frequently to a chemical plant in Batesville, Arkansas. While there, our hosts often “treated” us to a meal that featured deep-fried catfish, a local “specialty.”
I don’t care much for fish and I didn’t enjoy the catfish meal the first time I had it. Even though I didn’t wish to repeat the experience, our hosts took us out for catfish dinner every time we visited Batesville. So I just learned to expect it.
Catfish have recently caused problems for evolutionary biologists as well. Researchers have discovered an unanticipated example of convergence (repeated occurrence) involving catfish, one that causes them as much indigestion as the fried catfish caused me. It turns out the venom glands of poisonous catfish must have had at least two independent origin events, if viewed from an evolutionary perspective.
As I’ve previously pointed out, given the nature of its mechanism, evolution shouldn’t repeat itself, because it’s a historically contingent process. (See here and here for a more detailed discussion of this point.) And yet, over the last decade or so, evolutionary biologists have discovered a number of examples of convergence at the organismal and biochemical levels. In his book, Life’s Solution, paleontologist Simon Conway Morris describes numerous examples of morphological and behavioral convergence.
But convergence isn’t confined to macroscopic systems. As I describe in The Cell’s Design, when viewed from an evolutionary perspective, a number of life’s molecules and processes, though virtually identical, appear to have originated independently, multiple times.
New work by a scientist from the University of Michigan serves as one of the few detailed studies on the origin of venomous glands in fish. This investigator studied over 150 different species representing all the known species of catfish. Based on his examination, he concluded that between 1,250 to 1,600 species of catfish possess venom glands, far exceeding previous estimates.
Anatomical characterization reveals the venom glands are associated with sharp, bony spines along the leading edge of the catfish fins. When the spines puncture another fish, the membrane surrounding the venom-producing cells rips, thus releasing poison. The venoms generated by catfish cause a variety of effects including pain, muscle spasms, tissue damage, and respiratory distress.
When trying to account for the origin of venom glands in catfish from an evolutionary perspective, it appears as if these structures must have emerged at least two separate times. It also seems as if the evolutionary pathway leading to the emergence of toxin glands and associated structures was the same as well, with the gland toxins apparently derived from other skin compounds.
It is remarkable to think that a complex biological system like this would emerge independently on at least two separate occasions.
The widespread occurrences of convergence at the organismal and molecular level are unexpected given the nature of the evolutionary process. Biological convergence provides very real justification for skepticism about the idea that evolutionary mechanisms alone account for life’s history and diversity. On the other hand, the repeated, independent origins of complex systems make sense from a creation viewpoint. It is reasonable, then, to expect that the Creator would reuse good designs.
When served catfish by our well-meaning hosts, I thanked them for their hospitality and politely did my best to choke it down. But I have a hard time swallowing the idea that biological convergence can be explained apart from the work of a Creator.
Click here for original post.
In a recent volume of the Vienna Series in a Theoretical Biology (2003), Gerd B. Muller and Stuart Newman argue that what they call the “origination of organismal form” remains an unsolved problem. In making this claim, Muller and Newman (2003:3-10) distinguish two distinct issues, namely, (1) the causes of form generation in the individual organism during embryological development and (2) the causes responsible for the production of novel organismal forms in the first place during the history of life. To distinguish the latter case (phylogeny) from the former (ontogeny), Muller and Newman use the term “origination” to designate the causal processes by which biological form first arose during the evolution of life. They insist that “the molecular mechanisms that bring about biological form in modern day embryos should not be confused” with the causes responsible for the origin (or “origination”) of novel biological forms during the history of life (p.3). They further argue that we know more about the causes of ontogenesis, due to advances in molecular biology, molecular genetics and developmental biology, than we do about the causes of phylogenesis–the ultimate origination of new biological forms during the remote past.
In making this claim, Muller and Newman are careful to affirm that evolutionary biology has succeeded in explaining how preexisting forms diversify under the twin influences of natural selection and variation of genetic traits. Sophisticated mathematically-based models of population genetics have proven adequate for mapping and understanding quantitative variability and populational changes in organisms. Yet Muller and Newman insist that population genetics, and thus evolutionary biology, has not identified a specifically causal explanation for the origin of true morphological novelty during the history of life. Central to their concern is what they see as the inadequacy of the variation of genetic traits as a source of new form and structure. They note, following Darwin himself, that the sources of new form and structure must precede the action of natural selection (2003:3)–that selection must act on what already exists. Yet, in their view, the “genocentricity” and “incrementalism” of the neo-Darwinian mechanism has meant that an adequate source of new form and structure has yet to be identified by theoretical biologists. Instead, Muller and Newman see the need to identify epigenetic sources of morphological innovation during the evolution of life. In the meantime, however, they insist neo-Darwinism lacks any “theory of the generative” (p. 7).
As it happens, Muller and Newman are not alone in this judgment. In the last decade or so a host of scientific essays and books have questioned the efficacy of selection and mutation as a mechanism for generating morphological novelty, as even a brief literature survey will establish. Thomson (1992:107) expressed doubt that large-scale morphological changes could accumulate via minor phenotypic changes at the population genetic level. Miklos (1993:29) argued that neo-Darwinism fails to provide a mechanism that can produce large-scale innovations in form and complexity. Gilbert et al. (1996) attempted to develop a new theory of evolutionary mechanisms to supplement classical neo-Darwinism, which, they argued, could not adequately explain macroevolution. As they put it in a memorable summary of the situation: “starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its (neo-Darwinism’s) adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, ‘the origin of species–Darwin’s problem–remains unsolved’“ (p. 361). Though Gilbert et al. (1996) attempted to solve the problem of the origin of form by proposing a greater role for developmental genetics within an otherwise neo-Darwinian framework,1 numerous recent authors have continued to raise questions about the adequacy of that framework itself or about the problem of the origination of form generally (Webster & Goodwin 1996; Shubin & Marshall 2000; Erwin 2000; Conway Morris 2000, 2003b; Carroll 2000; Wagner 2001; Becker & Lonnig 2001; Stadler et al. 2001; Lonnig & Saedler 2002; Wagner & Stadler 2003; Valentine 2004:189-194).
What lies behind this skepticism? Is it warranted? Is a new and specifically causal theory needed to explain the origination of biological form?
Click here for the full article and active footnotes.
“Show me your God!” the doubter cries.
I point him to the smiling skies;
I show him all the woodland greens;
I show him peaceful sylvan scenes;
I show him winter snows and frost;
I show him waters tempest-tossed;
I show him hills rock-ribbed and strong;
I bid him hear the thrush’s song;
I show him flowers in the close -
The lily, violet and rose;
I show him rivers babbling streams;
I show him youthful hopes and dreams;
I show him maids with eager hearts;
I show him toilers in the marts;
I show him stars, the moon, the sun;
I show him deeds of kindness done;
I show him joy; I show him care,
And still he holds his doubting air,
And faithless goes his way, for he
Is blind of soul, and cannot see!
John Kendrick Bangs (1862-1922)
We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cossetted, cherished group of creatures; our Darwinian claim to have done it all ourselves is as ridiculous and as charming as a baby’s brave efforts to stand on its own feet and refuse his mother’s hand. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.
John A. O’Keefe (1916-2000) The Theological Impact of the New Cosmology, in Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 118 (as quoted in The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel)
Book review by Fazale Rana, Ph.D.
Part 5
A Chapter-by-Chapter Response to Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth
It was not one of my finer moments. I was on my junior high school’s basketball team and we were headed out for an away game. As we boarded the bus, the cheerleaders handed everyone an apple as a pre-game snack. Being in seventh grade meant I was relegated to the back of the bus where the exhaust fumes were especially bad that day. So after eating my apple, I pulled my shirt up over my nose in the hopes of filtering out some of the noxious odors. That move was my undoing.
The combination of the recently consumed apple, the exhaust, and the winding road pushed me over the edge. Soon I was feeling nauseous. And then the unthinkable happened—I threw up inside my shirt. I don’t know what was worse: the vomit all over my chest or the teasing that predictably ensued.
Everyone is embarrassed by something. And many creationists think that evolutionary biologists should be mortified by the gaps in the fossil record. But as Richard Dawkins writes in The Greatest Show on Earth, the fossil record is of no concern to evolutionary biologists in the least. In fact, Dawkins considers the fossil record as evidence for biological evolution—in spite of ridicule from the creationist camp about all the “missing links.”
He discusses this point in chapter six of The Greatest Show on Earth. This week I continue my chapter-by-chapter critique of his latest book in which he offers what he considers the best evidence for the evolutionary paradigm. (Go here, here, here, and for comments on previous chapters.)
Chapter Six
Dawkins admits there are gaps in the fossil record. But, he argues (and I would agree with his point), these gaps are to be expected given the vagaries of the burial and fossilization process. In fact, in some respects it is surprising that we have any fossils at all. According to Dawkins, creationists make much out of nothing when they use this point to deride the evolution.
He further asserts that the presence or absence of fossils is immaterial. From his standpoint, the case for biological evolution is so strong that a fossil record is not needed to establish the validity of evolution. Having fossils is a bonus. He then argues that the fossils we do possess provide powerful support for an evolutionary history of life, citing a number of examples presumably meant to document the evolution of major groups. Dawkins chooses to focus on the evolutionary transitions that allegedly occurred when vertebrates moved from the water to land with the origin of tetrapods, and then back to the water in the case of whales, seals, and turtles.
Response
I think Dawkins is wrong in his claim that the fossil record is not needed to establish the validity of biological evolution (macroevolution). Without an abundant fossil record, how is it possible to maintain that evolution is a fact? The preserved history of life provides the means to conduct a time-based assessment of Darwin’s idea. If evolution is understood as change in life’s history over time driven by the forces of selection, then time-based data is necessary to cement this idea’s legitimacy.
Darwin discovered a mechanism that accounts for microevolution, speciation, and the evolution of microbes. But does the same mechanism apply to large-scale biological changes? We know that selection operating on genetic variation explains small evolutionary changes because we can observe them in real time. As I have pointed out before, there are reasons to think this mechanism is limited to small-scale changes because work in artificial selection exposes nonnegotiable biological boundaries.
In order to prove that selection can yield large-scale biological innovation, we need some type of time-based observation. Of course, we can’t observe macroevolutionary changes directly, but in principle we can witness these changes from the fossil record, which serves as a proxy for life’s history—a history that should be characterized by certain features and patterns if macroevolution is indeed a fact.
In many respects, there are gaps in knowledge in every scientific discipline. The real questions are: Can we discern the actual trends in life’s history from the fossil record despite the gaps? And is the fossil record an adequate enough sampling to evaluate predictions made by Darwin’s theory? Many paleontologists think so.
Rather than revealing gradual evolutionary transformations as expected based on Darwin’s mechanism, life’s history is dominated by explosive appearances every time biological innovation occurs. Biologist Eugene Koonin has termed these dramatic innovations as “big bang” events. These big bangs include: the origin of cells, the origin of archaea, bacteriea, and eukarya, and the origin of animal body plans. (Go here to read an article I wrote about Koonin’s idea.) Gaps in the fossil record aren’t the problem for evolution, it’s the pattern of discontinuities and explosive innovations, a pattern I think better fits within a creation model.
But what about the examples Dawkins cites of evolutionary transformations at the water’s edge? These changes appear to be described by a series of transitional fossils. Given the incompleteness of the fossil record, aren’t these examples sufficient to establish evolution’s validity?
At first glance the origin of tetrapods, seals, and whales appear as remarkable examples of a transitional sequence in the fossil record. But careful consideration of the details identifies problems for the evolutionary framework. (Go here and here to read two articles I wrote about problems with the evolutionary account of tetrapod origins, and go here and here to listen to an episode of Science News Flash in which I discuss the evolutionary model for the origin of, whales and seals, respectively.)
One Final Point
In chapter six Dawkins also discusses a statement by famous biologist J. B. S. Haldane. As the story goes, Haldane was asked to identify an observation that would invalidate the theory of evolution. In reply, he quipped, “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!”
In other words, if fossils appeared out of order in the geological column, then the theory of evolution can’t be true. But Dawkins goes on to elaborate that there is “not a single solitary fossil [that] has ever been found before it could evolve.”
Evolutionary biologists often use this argument to defend their point of view. Yet I don’t buy it. In my opinion, this is a form of circular reasoning. We know that there aren’t rabbits in the Precambrian because we’ve never found rabbits in these geological layers. If rabbits were found in the Precambrian, then we would know that they existed during that time of Earth’s history.
There is nothing in the theory of evolution that tells us when organism should emerge. We know complex animal life appeared on Earth about 540 million years ago (mya) because the fossil record tells us so. We know that bony fish appear in the Ordovician because that’s what the fossil record shows. We know that dinosaurs appeared on Earth about 225 mya and became extent 65 mya because the fossil record indicates it.
Apart from the record provided by the fossil record, we wouldn’t have any knowledge of what past life on Earth looked like. Nor would we know anything about the timing and order of the appearance and disappearance of life-forms. Evolutionary biologists interpret the history of life from an evolutionary perspective and try to use their paradigm to explain the fossil record. But the theory of evolution can’t make predictions as to when life-forms should appear in Earth’s history. If rabbits were found in the Precambrian, Haldane and other evolutionary biologists most certainly wouldn’t abandon the evolutionary framework. Instead they would modify the theory to accommodate the appearance of rabbits at that point in time.
The fact of the matter is that there are “rabbits-in-the-Precambrian” examples in the fossil record that justifiably falsify the evolutionary paradigm. One that I’ve pointed out is the co-occurrence of vertebrates, chordates, urochordates, hemichordates, and echinoderms at the base of the Cambrian explosion. (Go here and here for previous articles.)
According to the evolutionary model, echinoderms produced hemichordates and urochordates as two separate evolutionary branches. Urochordates gave rise to chordates which, in turn, generated the jawless fish as the first vertebrates. In reality, fossils representative of these phyla show up simultaneously at the base of the Cambrian explosion. In other words, the fossils of jawless fish, chordates, urochordates, and hemichordates are out of sequence. If evolutionary biologists are sincere about the criterion for falsification laid down by Haldane, then good reason to abandon the evolutionary framework does exist.
The features that define the fossil don’t match the expectations based on Darwin’s mechanism. But the fossilized history of life on Earth is a bonus—a bonus for creationism.
