Creation: ‘where’s the proof?’
When the person you talk to on creation insists that you ‘leave the Bible out of it’, they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way.
by Ken Ham
Over the years, many people have challenged me with a question like:
‘I’ve been trying to witness to my friends. They say they don’t believe the Bible and aren’t interested in the stuff in it. They want real proof that there’s a God who created, and then they’ll listen to my claims about Christianity. What proof can I give them without mentioning the Bible so they’ll start to listen to me?’
Briefly, my response is as follows.
Evidence
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
Past and present
We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.
However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.
Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.
On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.
Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.
Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.
That’s why the argument often turns into something like:
‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’
‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’
‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’
‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.
These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.
It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.
I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.
It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.
However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.
As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’
However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.
What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.
Debate terms
If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:
‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see Naturalism, logic and reality.
Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10); ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7). ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).
A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30); ‘And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19).
Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history!
Ultimately, God’s Word convicts
1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4–5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: ‘For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.’
Also, Isaiah 55:11: ‘So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.’
Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God’s Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts.
Practical application
When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows:
‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’
One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence, and death.
Once I’ve explained some of this in detail, I then continue:
‘Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.’
In arguing this way, a Christian is:
Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to interpret the evidence.
Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand.1
Challenging the presuppositions of the other person (many are unaware they have these).
Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science and his own presuppositions (many will find that they cannot do this).
Honouring the Word of God that convicts the soul.
Remember, it’s no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about.
Naturalism, logic and reality
Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:
A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’
The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.
On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.
This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?
Ed. Note: for more information on formal logic and the Christian faith, see Loving God With All Your Mind: Logic and Creation. Return to text.
Recommended Resources
Creation: Facts of Life - 2006 edition
Former evolutionist Dr. Gary Parker describes the evidences he once used to “preach” evolution in his biology classes. This NEW edition has just been updated with topics of particular interest to public school students.
Battle for Truth (The)
In this engaging book you’ll find an easy-to-read summary of the worldviews that challenge traditional Christian values, as well as the resources you need to develop a better understanding of the biblical perspective.
Search for the Truth
Changing the world with the evidence for creation! Over 100 reprintable, one-page “articles” that explain the evidence for creation and the relevance of creation to modern society.
What Is the Best Evidence That God Created?
Carl Kerby presents a colorful, eye-catching talk on some of the most astounding evidence of God’s handiwork. Faith-building conclusion!
References and notes
In fact, science could avoid becoming still-born only in a Christian framework. Even secular philosophers of science are virtually unanimous on this. It required biblical presuppositions such as a real, objective universe, created by one Divine Lawgiver, who was neither fickle nor deceptive—and who also created the mind of man in a way that was in principle capable of understanding the universe. [Ed. note: Refuting Evolution, Ch. 1, discusses this in more detail.] Return to text.
This assumption is even defended, as a ‘practical necessity’ in discussing scientific things including origins, by some professing Christians who are evolutionists. Return to text.
Help keep these daily articles coming. Find out how to support AiG.
ResourcesContactDonate NowFAQsSite MapMy Account
» Advanced Search
Free Subscriptions
Enter your email address for one — or all — of our free subscription services.
Days of Praise
Acts & Facts
News & Updates
» Unsubscribe from email
» Subscribe to the printed version
» Unsubscribe from printed version
Museum
Offices
Morris Center
Contact
RUNAWAY SUBDUCTION AS THE DRIVING MECHANISM FOR THE GENESIS FLOOD
JOHN R. BAUMGARDNER, Ph.D.
1965 Camino Redondo
Los Alamos, NM 87544
Presented at the Third International Conference on Creationism
Pittsburgh, PA, July 18-23, 1994
Copyright 1994 by Creation Science Fellowship, Inc.
Pittsburgh, PA USA - All Rights Reserved
(click here to a link to the figures that go with this paper)
KEYWORDS
Runaway subduction, Genesis flood, power-law creep, thermal runaway, catastrophic plate tectonics
ABSTRACT
Experimental investigation of the solid state deformation properties of silicates at high temperatures has revealed that the deformation rate depends on the stress to a power of about 3 to 5 as well as strongly on the temperature. This highly nonlinear behavior leads to the potential of thermal runaway of the mantle's cold upper boundary layer as it peels away from the surface and sinks through the hot mantle. The additional fact that the mineral phase changes that occur at 660 km depth act as a barrier to convective flow and lead to a tendency for large episodic avalanche events compounds the potential for catastrophic dynamics. Two-dimensional finite element calculations are presented that attempt to model these strongly nonlinear phenomena. It is proposed that such a runaway episode was responsible for the Flood described in Genesis and resulted in massive global tectonic change at the earth's surface.
INTRODUCTION
The only event in Scripture since creation capable of the mass destruction of living organisms evident in the fossil record is the Genesis Flood. A critical issue in any model for earth history that accepts the Bible as accurate and true is what was the mechanism for this catastrophe that so transformed the face of the earth in such a brief span of time. The correct answer is crucial to understanding the Flood itself and for interpreting the geological record in a coherent and valid manner. It is therefore a key element in any comprehensive model of origins from a creationist perspective. Ideas proposed as candidate mechanisms over the past century include collapse of a water vapor canopy [5], near collision of a large comet with the earth [12], rapid earth expansion [11], and violent rupture of the crust by pressurized subterranean water [4]. There are serious difficulties with each of these ideas.
Another possibility is that of runaway subduction of the pre-Flood ocean lithosphere [2,3]. A compelling logical argument in favor of this mechanism is the fact that there is presently no ocean floor on the earth that predates the deposition of the fossiliferous strata. In other words all the basalt that comprises the upper five kilometers or so of today's igneous ocean crust has cooled from the molten state since sometime after the Flood cataclysm began. The age of today's seafloor relative to the fossil record is based on two decades of deep sea drilling and cataloging of fossils in the sediments overlying the basalt basement by the Deep Sea Drilling Program as well as radiometric dating of the basalts themselves [14]. Presumably, there were oceans and ocean floor before the Flood. If this pre-Flood seafloor did not subduct into the mantle, what was its fate? Where are these rocks today? On the other hand, if the pre-Flood seafloor did subduct, it must have done so very rapidly --within the year of the Flood. In regard to the fate of the pre-Flood seafloor, there is strong observational support in global seismic tomography models for cold, dense material near the base of the lower mantle in a belt surrounding the present Pacific ocean [16]. Such a spatial pattern is consistent with subduction of large areas of seafloor at the edges of a continent configuration commonly known as Pangea.
There are good physical reasons for believing that subduction can occur in a catastrophic fashion because of the potential for thermal runaway in silicate rock. This mechanism was first proposed by Gruntfest [6] in 1963 and was considered by several in the geophysics community in the early 1970's [1]. Previous ICC papers [2,3] have discussed the process by which a large cold, relatively more dense, volume of rock in the mantle generates deformational heating in an envelope surrounding it, which in turn reduces the viscosity in the envelope because of the sensitivity of the viscosity to temperature. This decrease in viscosity in turn allows the deformation rate in the envelope to increase, which leads to more intense deformational heating, and finally, because of the positive feedback, results in a sinking rate orders of magnitude higher than would occur otherwise. It was pointed out that thermal diffusion, or conduction of heat out of the zone of high deformation, competes with this tendency toward thermal runaway. It was argued there is a threshold beyond which the deformational heating is strong enough to overwhelm the thermal diffusion, and some effort was made to characterize this threshold.
The important new aspect addressed in this paper is the dependence of the viscosity on the deformation rate itself. Although this deformation rate dependence of viscosity has been observed experimentally in the laboratory for several decades, the difficulty of treating it in numerical models has deterred most investigators from exploring many of its implications. Results reported in the previous ICC papers did not include this highly nonlinear phenomenon. Significant improvements in the numerical techniques that permit large variations in viscosity over small distances in the computational domain, however, now make such calculations practical. The result of including this behavior in the analysis of the thermal runaway mechanism is to discover a much stronger tendency for instability in the earth's mantle. Moreover, deformation rates orders of magnitude higher than before throughout large volumes of the mantle now can be credibly accounted for in terms of this more realistic deformation law. This piece of physics therefore represents a major advance in understanding how a global tectonic catastrophe could transform the face of the earth on a time scale of a few weeks in the manner that Genesis describes Noah's Flood.
Recent papers by several different investigators [10,13,18,19] have also shown that the mineral phase changes which occur as the pressure in the mantle increases with depth also leads to episodic dynamics. The spinel to perovskite plus magnesiowustite transition at about 660 km depth is endothermic and acts as a barrier to flow at this interface between the upper and lower mantle. It therefore tends to trap cold material from the mantle's upper boundary layer as it peels away from the surface and sinks. Numerical studies show that, with this phase transition present, flow in the mantle becomes very episodic in character and punctuated with brief avalanche events that dump the cold material that has accumulated in the upper mantle into the lower mantle. The episodic behavior occurs without the inclusion of the physics that leads to thermal runaway. This paper argues that when temperature and strain rate dependence of the rheology is included, the time scale for these catastrophic episodes is further reduced by orders of magnitude. In this light, the Flood of the Bible with its accompanying tectonic expressions is a phenomenon that is seems to be leaping out of the recent numerical simulations.
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
In this numerical model the silicate mantle is treated as an infinite Prandtl number, anelastic fluid within a domain with isothermal, undeformable, traction-free boundaries. Under these approximations the following equations describe the local fluid behavior:
0=- (p - pr) + (r - rr) g + t
(1)
0= (r u)
(2)
dT/dt=- (T u) - (g - 1) T u + [ (k T) + t : u + H]/rrcv
(3)
where t =m [ u + ( u)T - 2 I ( u)/3]
(4)
and r=rr + rr(p - pr)/K - a(T - Tr).
(5)
Here p denotes pressure, r density, g gravitational acceleration, t deviatoric stress, u fluid velocity, T absolute temperature, g the Grueneisen parameter, k thermal conductivity, H volume heat production rate, cv specific heat at constant volume, m dynamic shear viscosity, K the isothermal bulk modulus, and a the volume coefficient of thermal expansion. The quantities pr, rr, and Tr are, respectively, the pressure, density, and temperature of the reference state. I is the identity tensor. The superscript T in (4) denotes the tensor transpose. Equation (1) expresses the conservation of momentum in the infinite Prandtl number limit. In this limit, the deformational term is so large that the inertial terms normally needed to describe less viscous fluids may be completely ignored. The resulting equation (1) then represents the balance among forces arising from pressure gradients, buoyancy, and deformation. Equation (2) expresses the conservation of mass under the anelastic approximation. The anelastic approximation ignores the partial derivative of density with respect to time in the dynamics and thereby eliminates fast local density oscillations. It allows the computational time step to be dictated by the much slower deformational dynamics. Equation (3) expresses the conservation of energy in terms of absolute temperature. It includes effects of transport of heat by the flowing material, compressional heating and expansion cooling, thermal conduction, shear or deformational heating, and local volume (e.g., radiogenic) heating.
The expression for the deviatoric stress given by equation (4) assumes the dynamic shear viscosity m depends on temperature, pressure, and strain rate. The stress therefore is nonlinear with respect to velocity, and the rheological description is non-Newtonian. This formulation is appropriate for the deformation regime in solids known as power-law creep to be discussed below. Equation (5) represents density variations as linearly proportional to pressure and temperature variations relative to a simple reference state of uniform density, pressure and temperature. Parameter values used are rr =3400 kg m-3, pr=0, Tr=1600 K, g=10 m/s, g=1, k=4 W m-1K-1, H=1.7 x 10-8 W m-3, cv =1000 J kg-1K-1, and K=1 x 1012 Pa.
POWER-LAW CREEP
Laboratory experiments to characterize the high temperature solid state deformation properties of silicates have been carried out by many investigators over the last three decades [8,9]. These experiments have established that, for temperatures above about sixty percent of the melting temperature and strain rates down to the smallest achievable in the laboratory, silicate materials such as olivine deform according to a relationship of the form [8]
=A sn exp[ -(E* + pV*)/RT] (6)
where e is the strain rate, A a material constant, s the differential stress, n a dimensionless constant on the order of 3 to 5, E* an activation energy, p is pressure, V* an activation volume, R the universal gas constant, and T absolute temperature. This relationship implies that at constant temperature and pressure the deformation rate increases dramatically more rapidly than the stress. Because the strain rate increases as the stress to some power greater than one, this type of deformation is known as power-law creep. This relationship may also be expressed in terms of an effective viscosity m=0.5s/e that depends on the strain rate e as [9, 17, p. 291]
m=B -q exp[(E* + pV*)/nRT] (7)
where B=0.5A-1/n and q=1 - 1/n. A value for n of 3.5, appropriate for the mineral olivine [8,9], yields a q of 0.714. This means that the effective viscosity m decreases strongly as the strain rate increases. A tenfold increase in the strain rate, for example, yields an effective viscosity, at fixed temperature and pressure, a factor of 5.2 smaller! For a 1010 increase in strain rate, the effective viscosity decreases by more than a factor of 107. The effect is even more pronounced for larger values of n.
Fig. 1 is a deformation mechanism map for olivine that shows the region in stress-temperature space where power-law creep is observed. Note that there exists a boundary between the power-law creep regime and that of diffusional creep. Because the strain rates for diffusional creep are so small--too small in fact to be realized in laboratory experiments--this boundary is poorly constrained. Kirby [8, p. 1461] states that the boundary may in actuality be substantially to the left of where he has drawn it. In any case at a given temperature there is a threshold value for the strain rate at which point one crosses from the diffusional regime--where the strain rate depends linearly on the stress--into the power-law regime. From Fig. 1 this threshold is on the order of 10-17 to 10-14 s-1 for temperatures about 60% of the melting temperature and stresses of about 1 MPa.
Power-law creep is included in the numerical model simply by using the effective viscosity given by (7) in (4), where the scalar strain rate e is obtained by taking the square root of the second invariant of the rate of strain tensor d=(u + uT)/2. To remove the singularity in (7) for zero strain rate and to model explicitly the transition between diffusion creep and power-law creep, a minimum or threshold strain rate o is incorporated into the formulation. For regions in the domain where the strain rate exceeds o, equation (7) applies. Otherwise the viscosity is strain rate independent. The parameter B is specified in terms of a reference viscosity mo at reference temperature Tr and zero strain rate as B=mo/{o-q exp[(E* + pV*)/nRTr]}. To model the viscosity contrast between the upper mantle and lower mantle, the reference viscosity is allowed to vary with depth and increase in a linear fashion by a factor of 50 between 400 and 700 km. For purposes of numerical stability the threshold strain rate o is assumed to vary as 1/mo.
PHASE CHANGES
The jumps in seismic quantities observed at depths of about 410 km and 660 km in the earth closely match phase transitions observed in laboratory experiments at similar temperatures and pressures for olivine to spinel and from spinel to perovskite silicate structures, respectively. These phase transitions that occur as the pressure increases and the crystal structures assume more compact configurations almost certainly play a critical role in the mantle's dynamical behavior. In a calculation in which silicate material is transported through these depths and undergoes these phase changes, two effects need to be taken into account. One is the latent heat released or absorbed and the other is the deflection of the phase boundary upward or downward. The latent heat may be accounted for by adding or removing heat through the volume heating term in equation (3) proportional to the vertical flux of material through the transition depth. The latent heat per unit mass is obtained from the Clapeyron equation which expresses that in a phase transition DH=(dp/dT) T DV, where DH is the enthalpy change, or latent heat, and DV is the change in specific volume. The Clapeyron slope (dp/dT) is a quantity that can be determined experimentally for a given transition. The deflection in the location of a phase boundary occurs because the pressure, and therefore the depth, at which the phase change occurs depends on the temperature. The effect of such a deflection enters as a contribution to the buoyancy term in equation (1). A downward deflection represents positive buoyancy because the lighter phase now occupies volume normally occupied by the denser phase. The Clapeyron slope is also a constant of proportionality in the boundary deflection Dh=-(dp/dT) DT/rg that arises from a deviation DT from the reference temperature. The values for the Clapeyron slope used here are 1 x 106 Pa/K for the 410 km transition and -2 x 106 Pa/K for the 660 km transition. Note that the exothermic 410 km transition leads to a positive or upward deflection for a cold slab and hence increased negative buoyancy, while the endothermic 660 km transition leads to a downward deflection and reduced negative buoyancy. The 660 km transition therefore acts to inhibit buoyancy driven flow while the 410 km transition acts to enhance it.
NUMERICAL APPROACH
The set of equations (1)-(5) is solved in a discrete manner on a uniform rectangular mesh with velocities located at the mesh nodes and temperatures, pressures, and densities at cell centers. Piecewise linear finite elements are used to represent the velocity field, while the cell centered variables are treated as piecewise constant over the cells. The calculational procedure on each time step is first to apply a two-level conjugate gradient algorithm [15] to compute the velocity and pressure fields simultaneously from Eq. (1) and (2). This task involves solving 3n simultaneous equations for 2n velocity unknowns and n pressure unknowns, where n is the total number of nodes in the mesh. Key to the procedure is an iterative multigrid solver that employs an approximate inverse with a 25-point stencil. This large stencil for the approximate inverse enables the method to handle large variations in viscosity in a stable fashion. The outstanding rate of convergence in the multigrid solver is responsible for the method's overall high efficiency. The piecewise linear finite element basis functions provide second-order spatial accuracy. The temperature field is updated according to Eq. (3) with a forward-in-time finite difference van Leer limited advection method.
RESULTS
Two calculations will now be described that illustrate the effects of power law creep on the stability of a sinking slab. The two calculations are identical except for the value of the strain rate threshold above which power law creep occurs. In the first case, the threshold o in the upper 400 km is 3 x 10-13 s-1 which is sufficiently large that no power law creep occurs anywhere in the domain. In the second case, the threshold is 6.5 x 10-14 s-1, about a factor of five smaller. In this case runaway eventually takes place. These calculations are performed in a rectangular domain 2890 km high and 1280 km wide on a mesh with 64 x 64 cells of uniform size. The viscosity mo at zero strain rate and 1600 K increases in a simple linear fashion by a factor 50 between 400 km and 700 km depth to represent the stiffer rheology of the earth's lower mantle compared with the upper mantle. The phase changes at 410 km and 660 km depth are both included. The endothermic phase transition at 660 km as well as the higher intrinsic viscosity below this depth both act to inhibit flow from above. The calculations are initialized with a uniform temperature of 1600 K except for a slablike anomaly 100 km wide extending from the top to a depth of 400 km with a central temperature of 1000 K and a thermal boundary layer at the top such that the temperature in the topmost layer of cells is initially 1000 K. The upper boundary temperature is fixed at 700 K and the bottom at 1600 K.
Fig. 2 shows four snapshots in time spaced roughly 6 x 106 years apart of the calculation with the larger strain rate threshold. Plots of temperature and effective viscosity are displayed with velocities superimposed. Note that the initial maximum velocity drops by a factor of two as the slab encounters increasing resistance from the higher viscosity and 660 km phase change. The colder material tends to accumulate and thicken in width in the depth range between 400 and 700 km. When sufficient thickening of the zone of cold material has occurred, it begins to penetrate slowly into the region below 700 km.
Fig. 3 shows the effects of a strain rate threshold o sufficiently low that power law creep is occurring in a significant portion of the problem domain. The first three snapshots in time for this case resemble those for the previous case. The main difference are regions of reduced effective viscosity in the region below 700 km evident in the first and third snapshots due to the power-law rheology. A major change is observed, however, in the fourth snapshot with an increase in peak velocity and a notable reduction in effective viscosity below the head of the developing cold plume. In the fifth snapshot the peak velocity has increased by another 80% and there is more than a factor of ten reduction in the effective viscosity ahead of the plume. Also displayed in this snapshot is the viscous heating rate that shows intense heating surrounding the plume. In the sixth snapshot, the head of the cold plume is preceded by a belt of high temperature, the velocity has almost doubled again, the effective viscosities near the plume have dropped even further, and the heating rate adjacent to the plume has more than doubled. Shortly after this point in the calculation, runaway occurs and the computation crashes.
DISCUSSION
What do these calculations have to say about the mantle and the Flood? First of all, power-law rheology dramatically enhances the potential for thermal runaway. Numerical calculations are not really necessary to reach this conclusion. Equation (7) indicates an increase in the deformation rate leads to a reduction in the effective viscosity and reinforces the reduction in viscosity an increase in temperature provides. These effects work together in a potent way. An exciting further consequence of the power-law rheology is that high velocities and strain rates can now occur throughout the mantle. A hint of this can be inferred from the last two snapshots in Fig. 3. Large and increasing velocities are not just associated with the sinking plume itself but are observed throughout the domain. The remaining horizontal sections of the initial cold upper boundary layer, for example, are also moving at much higher speeds.
In interpreting these numerical experiments it is important to realize that one is attempting to explore numerically a physically unstable process. Customary numerical difficulties associated with strong gradients in the computed quantities are compounded when such a physical instability occurs. The strategy is to explore the region of parameter space nearby but not too close to where the instability actually lives. The calculation of Fig. 3 therefore does not reveal the true strength of the instability relative to the situation of a moderately lower value for the threshold strain rate. It is also useful to point out how various quantities scale relative to one another. The velocities are inversely proportional to the reference viscosity. A tenfold reduction in the reference viscosity gives ten times higher velocities. Similarly, the threshold strain rate for runaway behavior is inversely proportional to the reference viscosity since strain rate is proportional to velocity. So reducing the reference viscosity by a factor of ten yields a threshold strain rate for runaway ten times larger. This neglects the diminished influence of thermal diffusion at the higher velocities.
How do the parameters used in these calculations compare with those estimated for the earth? The values used for g, g, k, H, rr, cv, Tr, and a in eq. (1)-(5) are all reasonable to within +/-30% for the simplified reference state that is employed. The values used for the Clapeyron slopes for the phase transitions are two to three times too small and so the effects of the phase changes are underrepresented. The most important parameters are the reference viscosity and the threshold strain rate for power-law creep. The reference viscosity leads to velocities prior to runaway that are in accord with current observed plate velocities of a few centimeters per year. The threshold strain rates used are within the power-law creep region for olivine as given by Kirby (Fig. 1). A large uncertainty is the extrapolation of the creep behavior of olivine to the minerals of the lower mantle for which there is essentially no experimental data. The issue is not whether power-law creep occurs in these minerals but what the stress range is in which it occurs. It is likely the threshold strain rate is not many orders of magnitude different from olivine. These calculations therefore seem relevant to the earth as we observe it today.
One difficulty in making a connection between these calculations and the Flood is their time scale. Some 2 x 107 years is needed before the instability occurs in the second calculation. Most of this time is involved with the accumulation of a large blob of cold, dense material at the barrier created by the phase transition at 660 km depth. This time span disappears when the initial condition consists of a large belt of cold material already trapped above this phase transition in the pre-Flood mantle. A relatively small amount of additional negative buoyancy in such a belt can then trigger runaway. One means for providing a quick pulse of negative buoyancy is by the sudden conversion to spinel of olivine in a metastable state that resides at depths below the usual transition depth of about 410 km. Such metastability can arise because the changes in volume and structure associated with a phase transition do not necessarily occur spontaneously as transition conditions are reached, especially if the material is cold. Some means of nucleation of seed crystals of the new phase is generally required. If such nucleation does not happen, then substantial amounts of the less dense phase can survive to depths much greater than what the assumption of a spontaneous transition would imply. Indeed, there is observational evidence for significant amounts of metastable olivine in the slab currently beneath Japan [7]. A shock wave passing through such a volume of metastable material can initiate the nucleation and cause a sudden conversion to the denser phase. Present day deep focus earthquakes likely represent manifestations of such a process on a small scale. In the context of the Flood, it is conceivable that an extraterrestrial impact of modest size could have triggered a sudden conversion of metastable material to the denser phase and the resulting earthquakes then propagated in a self-sustaining manner to convert the metastable material throughout much of the upper mantle to the denser spinel phase, which in turn initiated the runaway avalanche of upper mantle rock into the lower mantle. It is also conceivable that a single large earthquake generated by causes internal to the earth could have been the event that caused a sudden conversion of the metastable material and then the runaway avalanche.
CONCLUSIONS
Rapid sinking through the mantle of portions of the mantle's cold upper boundary facilitated by the process of thermal runaway appears to be a genuine possibility for the earth. A highly nonlinear deformation law for silicate minerals at conditions of high temperature known as power-law creep, documented by decades of experimental effort, in which the effective viscosity decreases strongly with the deformation rate, makes thermal runaway almost a certainty for a significant suite of conditions. This deformation law also makes possible strain rates consistent with large scale tectonic change within the Biblical time frame for the Flood. Mineralogical phase changes combined with the viscosity contrast between upper and lower mantle conspire to provide the setting in which a sudden triggering of a runaway avalanche of material trapped in the upper mantle into the lower mantle can occur. Calculations by other investigators that include the endothermic phase transition, but not temperature or strain rate dependent viscosity, also display the tendency for episodic avalanche events [10,13,18,19]. Such an episode of catastrophic runaway is here presented as the mechanism responsible for Noah's Flood.
REFERENCES
O. L. Anderson and P. C. Perkins, Runaway Temperatures in the Asthenosphere Resulting from Viscous Heating, Journal of Geophysical Research, 79(1974), pp. 2136-2138.
J. R. Baumgardner, Numerical Simulation of the Large-Scale Tectonic Changes Accompanying the Flood, Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism, R. E. Walsh, et al, Editors, 1987, Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, Vol. II, pp. 17-28.
J. R. Baumgardner, 3-D Finite Element Simulation of the Global Tectonic Changes Accompanying Noah's Flood, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, R. E. Walsh and C. L. Brooks, Editors, 1991, Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, Vol. II, pp. 35-45.
W. T. Brown, Jr., In the Beginning, 1989, Center for Scientific Creation, Phoenix.
J. C. Dillow, The Waters Above, 1981, Moody Press, Chicago.
I. J. Gruntfest, Thermal Feedback in Liquid Flow; Plane Shear at Constant Stress, Transactions of the Society of Rheology, 8(1963), pp. 195-207.
T. Iidaka and D. Suetsugu, Seismological Evidence for Metastable Olivine Inside a Subducting Slab, Nature, 356(1992), pp. 593-595.
S. H. Kirby, Rheology of the Lithosphere, Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, 21(1983), pp. 1458-1487.
S. H. Kirby and A. K. Kronenberg, Rheology of the Lithosphere: Selected Topics, Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, 25(1987), pp. 1219-1244.
P. Machetel and P. Weber, Intermittent Layered Convection in a Model Mantle with an Endothermic Phase Change at 670 km, Nature, 350(1991), pp. 55-57.
G. R. Morton, The Flood on an Expanding Earth, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 19(1983), pp. 219-224.
D. W. Patton, The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch, 1966, Pacific Meridian Publishing, Seattle.
W. R. Peltier and L. P. Solheim, Mantle Phase Transitions and Layered Chaotic Convection, Geophysical Research Letters, 19(1992), pp. 321-324.
Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program
A. Ramage and A. J. Wathen, Iterative Solution Techniques for Finite Element Discretisations of Fluid Flow Problems, Copper Mountain Conference on Iterative Methods Proceedings, Vol. 1., 1992.
M. A. Richards and D. C. Engebretson, Large-Scale Mantle Convection and the History of Subduction, Nature, 355(1992), pp. 437-440.
F. D. Stacey, Physics of the Earth, 2nd ed., 1977, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
P. J. Tackley, D. J. Stevenson, G. A. Glatzmaier, and G. Schubert, Effects of an Endothermic Phase Transition at 670 km Depth on Spherical Mantle Convection, Nature, 361(1993), pp. 699-704.
S. A. Weinstein, Catastrophic Overturn of the Earth's Mantle Driven by Multiple Phase Changes and Internal Heat Generation, Geophysical Research Letters, 20(1993), pp. 101-104.
FIGURES
(click here to a link to the figures that go with this paper)
Back to top
» Research Papers Index
Research Papers Menu Complex Life Cycles in Heterophyid Trematodes - Armitage Earthquakes and the End Times - Austin/Strauss The Tunguska Explosion of 1908 - Austin/Brazo Rapid Erosion at Mount St. Helens - Austin Excess Argon in Mineral Concentrates from Mount St. Helens Volcano - Austin Evidences for Rapid Formation and Failure of Pleistocene "Lava Dams" - Austin/Rugg Discordant Potassium-Argon Isochron Ages - Austing/Snelling Catastrophic Plate Tectonics - Austin/Baumgardner/research/index/researchp_. Computer Modeling of Large-scale Tectonics - Baumgardner Runaway Subduction as Driving Mechanism for Genesis Flood - Baumgardner Patterns of Ocean Circulation During Noah's Flood - Baumgardner/Barnette Instrument for Measuring a Christian Creationist Worldview - deckard/Sobko The Current State of Creationist Astronomy - Faulkner Comparing Origins Belief and Moral Views - Overman Submarine Flow and Slide Deposits in the Mojave Desert, California - Sigler/Wingerden The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-Argon Ages - Snelling U-Th-Pb Dating: An Example of False Isochrons - Snelling Regional Metamorphism within A Creationist Framework - Snelling The Cooling of Thick Igneous Bodies on A Young Earth - Snelling/Woodmorappe A Biblical Model of Deep Sea-Floor Sedimentation - Vardiman Rapid Changes in Oxygen Isotope Content of Ice Cores - Vardiman Newton's Approach to Science: Honoring Scripture - Vardiman Numerical Simulation of Precipitation Induced By Hot Mid-Ocean Ridges - Vardiman Sensitivity Studies on Vapor Canopy Temperature Profiles - Vardiman/Bousselot Highlights of the Los Alamos Origins Debate - Baumgardner Numerical Climate Modeling at ICR - Acts & Facts
ECFA | ICRA Rated | Privacy Policy ©2007 Institute for Creation Research, All Rights Reserved | Ethical Use Policy
God and evolution: do they mix?
Belief in God and evolution seems an easy option to some. But is the cost too heavy to bear?
by Nancy Pearcey
How many people do you know who are theistic evolutionists—meaning they believe in both God and evolution? When you stop to think about it, many of the people you know are. Most people, even if their idea of God is hazy, do believe in some kind of deity. And, if they haven't thought much about it one way or the other, most do believe in evolution. So put the two together, and they come out as theistic evolutionists.
Not that they would all use the term 'theistic evolutionist.' I have met people who do not even know what the term means. 'Theistic' comes from theos, the Greek word for God. So theistic evolution is the idea that God used evolution to create the world. Life supposedly originated from non-living chemicals, just as the atheistic evolutionist says it did, and all modern forms of life are thought to have then developed from the first one-celled organism by mutation and natural selection. The difference is that God supposedly created the initial materials and set up the natural laws, then guided the whole process.
Theistic evolution has enormous appeal. It seems to offer the best of both worlds. It offers the comfort and fulfilment of believing in God, and at the same time the security of fitting in with the major scientific consensus.
The difficult part about covering this topic is that there exist so many different forms of theistic evolution. It is probably no exaggeration to say that there is a different form for every theistic evolutionist around. Our approach here will be to group them in general categories, and to present the weaknesses of each.
WHICH GOD IN THEISTIC EVOLUTION?
We could set the various forms of theistic evolution on a continuum. If we put atheistic evolution on one end, the next would be some form of non-Christian theistic evolution. Then we come to a very minimal kind of Christian theistic evolution (God is no more than a distant First Cause who started it all). People in this group are quite liberal in their theology as well. Then we come to Christians who hold on to a relatively orthodox view of the Bible and theistic evolution.
If we were to continue, the next group would be the old-Earth creationists, or progressive creationists, who believe God created the major kinds of living organisms, but that He did it over millions of years. Finally, separate from those above, are the young-Earth creationists, who believe God created the world in six literal days and that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old.
CAN WE TRUST THE BIBLE?
In accepting evolution, liberal theologians reject a number of key Christian beliefs. They reject the traditional date and authorship of many books in the Bible, which in itself represents a drastic undercutting of confidence in Scripture. If we cannot trust the Bible when it makes simple claims about when and by whom it was written, can we trust it when it makes much more important spiritual claims?
In treating the Bible as though it must be cut and patched to convey a 'true' picture, liberal theologians are saying it is full of errors. If the Bible is full of errors, it obviously cannot be revelation from God.
Take Genesis, for example. Liberalism rejects the Bible's own claim that God told Moses what to write (Exodus 24:4; Numbers 33:2; etc.). Instead, it assumes that Genesis is a collection of writings by authors living much later. These hypothetical authors (dubbed J, E, D, and P) were writing merely out of their own experience and convictions. An example can be found in Conrad Hyer's book, The Meaning of Creation. He attributes the content of Genesis 1 and 2 not to God's revelation, but to the life experiences and religious purposes of its hypothetical authors, presumably writing hundreds of years after Moses.1
WHERE DID EVIL COME FROM?
A contemporary of Darwin described the theological impact of evolution in these words:
'The evolution of man from lower forms of life was in itself a new and startling fact, and one that broke up the old theology. I and my contemporaries, however, accepted it as fact. The first and obvious result of this experience was that we were compelled to regard the Biblical story of the Fall as not historic ... If there is no historic Fall, what becomes of the redemption, the salvation through Christ?'2
The Bible clearly tells us that evil, suffering, and death are real, so we are not escapist. However, evil is not intrinsic to the world. God created a good world. Evil entered by the free choice of individual human beings when Adam and Eve first sinned. So it is not contradictory to say that some day God will wipe out evil and sorrow.
This teaching is both our hope for the future and our basis for fighting evil today. The theistic evolutionist loses all this. By denying the Fall, he loses the Biblical answer to the question, where did evil and suffering come from?
Theistic evolution assumes that evil and death are intrinsic to God's creation and have been there since the beginning. In other words, that God created them. God Himself is then the source of evil. But then God must be an evil God. To avoid this conclusion theistic evolutionists usually trivialize evil. This imperfect world is just a stepping stone to a better world which will evolve from it. Which brings us to the next point.
REDEEMED FROM WHAT?
If there was no Fall, why do we need redemption? If the problem is not our sin but our animal nature, then we only need to wait for evolution to raise us to the next stage.
I was talking to a young woman recently who summed it up well. The answer is so simple, she said, that we often overlook it. Jesus treated Genesis as though it actually happened, so that settles it. We may not be able to master a lot of complex arguments against theistic evolution, but even a child can grasp this one. Among those who claim to be Christians, Jesus' own treatment of Genesis closes the question.
Web links
Q&A: Genesis-Theistic Evolution
FOOTNOTES
Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Genesis: Genesis and Modern Science, John Knox Press, 1984.
Cited in Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith, Presbyterian and Reformed, Phillipsburg (New Jersey), 1969, p. 171.
(Copyright © Bible-Science Association, Inc., PO Box 33220, Minneapolis, MN 55433-0220. Used with permission.)
Help keep these daily articles coming. Find out how to support AiG.
Evolution vs. creation: the order of events matters!
by Dr. Terry Mortenson, AiG–USA
April 4, 2006
Many Christians think that if we just take each of the days of creation as being figurative of long ages (hundreds of millions of years or more), we can harmonize the Bible with the big bang and the geological evidence for a very old earth. But this only seems reasonable to those who pay insufficient attention to the order of events according to Genesis chapter 1 and the order of events according to evolution theory.
This old-earth view of the days is often called the “day-age” view and is an aspect of both progressive creationism and theistic evolution. There are many strong biblical objections to the day-age view. First, the Bible gives us abundant evidence that the days were intended by God (the divine author) and Moses (the human author) to be understood as literal 24-hour days (see How long were the days of Genesis 1? and Did God really take six days?).
Second, along with the gap theory, framework hypothesis and other old-earth positions, the day-age view postulates millions of years of death, disease, violence and extinction in the animal world long before man was created. But this absolutely contradicts the Bible’s teaching about sin and death occurring after man was created (see Two histories of death and The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe).
Furthermore, like these other old-earth views, the day-age view is based on the false assumption that science has proven long ages through such things as (1) radiometric dating methods (see RATE group reveals exciting breakthroughs! and Thousands … Not Billions), (2) distant starlight (Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang and Distant Starlight) and (3) how long it supposedly takes for rock layers to form (Rapid rocks and Rocks & Ages: Do They Hide Millions of Years?). These old-earth views developed about 200 years ago as Christians abandoned the orthodox young-earth view that dominated the first 1,800 years of church history (see British scriptural geologists in the first half of the nineteenth century: part 1 and Millions of Years: Where Did the Idea Come From?).
Here in this article, I want to discuss another problem for the day-age view: the order of events of creation recorded in Genesis 1 contradicts (at very many points) the order of events according to the evolution story. That means that even if you don’t believe in Darwinian evolution as an explanation of the origin of living things, the only way you can harmonize Genesis with the idea of millions of years is by rearranging the order of events in Genesis.
Consider these examples of contradictions of order.
Evolution Genesis
Sun before earth Earth before sun
Dry land before sea Sea before dry land
Atmosphere before sea Sea before atmosphere
Sun before light on earth Light on earth before sun
Stars before earth Earth before stars
Earth at same time as planets Earth before other planets
Sea creatures before land plants Land plants before sea creatures
Earthworms before starfish Starfish before earthworms
Land animals before trees Trees before land animals
Death before man Man before death
Thorns and thistles before man Man before thorns and thistles
TB pathogens & cancer before man (dinosaurs had TB and cancer) Man before TB pathogens and cancer
Reptiles before birds Birds before reptiles
Land mammals before whales Whales before land animals
Simple plants before fruit trees Fruit trees before other plants*
Insects before mammals Mammals (cattle) before “creeping things”*
Land mammals before bats Bats before land animals
Dinosaurs before birds Birds before dinosaurs
Insects before flowering plants Flowering plants before insects
Sun before plants Plants before sun
Dinosaurs before dolphins Dolphins before dinosaurs
Land reptiles before pterosaurs Pterosaurs before land reptiles
Land insects before flying insects Flying insects before land insects
* The order mentioned in Scripture suggests a slight difference in the timing of their appearance; i.e., they were created on the same day, possibly moments or hours apart.
To put it pictorially, you can see the contradiction here:
We need to be aware of one more important point of contradiction. The Bible says that the earth was completely covered with water twice in its history—the first two days of creation (before dry land first appeared) and then about 1,600 years later during Noah’s Flood.
But evolution says that there has never been a global ocean on this planet. Evolution says that the earth was originally a hot, molten lava ball which over millions of years cooled to develop a hard crust and an atmosphere. Eventually the earth developed an irregular topography (hills and valleys) and rainfall gradually filled in some of the low spots to form localized seas.
Just so there is no confusion about this, look at this series of pictures from a geology book produced by the Institute of Geological Sciences in London, England (an evolutionist institution).
Next to these pictures on the same page the author writes:
Condensation of part of the vast cloud of cold dust and gas that gave rise to the Solar System initially formed a molten Earth surrounded by a thick and dense atmosphere of cosmic gases … made up largely of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide … As the globe slowly cooled, crystallisation of minerals … began to make a crust … to build a new atmosphere … water vapour condensed and fell as rain … the first oceans collected in low-lying areas …1
Dr. Hugh Ross, a progressive creationist, was badly uninformed when he told viewers of TV program seven of The Great Debate on the John Ankerberg Show (aired in March 2006) that in the standard big bang cosmology: “the earth begins with water over the whole surface.” Dr. Ross is simply wrong.
For all these reasons and more, you cannot harmonize the Bible with millions of years, no matter where you try to wedge in the time into Genesis—unless you rearrange the text by moving verses and phrases around to radically change the order of events in Genesis 1. But that is not the way to treat the Bible. That is not Bible interpretation—rather it is Bible mutilation, to make it say what “evolutionized” Christians want it to say.
The Bible clearly teaches a literal six-day creation a few thousand years ago and a global catastrophic Flood at the time of Noah. The Bible firmly resists any attempts to marry it with evolution and millions of years. Rather than playing fast and loose with the sacred text, we ought to heed the words of Isaiah 66:2, where God says:
For My hand made all these things, thus all these things came into being,” declares the LORD. “But to this one I will look, to him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.
Recommended resources
GREAT DEBATE on Science and the Bible (The)
Ken Ham & Jason Lisle vs. Hugh Ross & Walt Kaiser. Compelling! This series is a wake-up call to biblical compromise and should be viewed by every pastor, adult Sunday school teacher and church board in America. A 5-DVD set.
Unformed and Unfilled
This is the best and most detailed critique of the Gap theory available. The author looks at the inconsistencies of this position and shows that the Hebrew language in Genesis does not allow for such a gap.
Great Turning Point (The)
Many in the church today think that “young earth” creation is a fairly recent invention, popularized by fundamental Christians in the mid-20th century. Dr. Mortenson reveals fascinating original research that documents a different story.
War of the Worldviews
What do aliens, dinosaurs and gay marriage have in common? Discover the connection, and how to respond, in this amazing new book from AiG.
7 Modern-Day Scientists: Who Oppose Evolution and “Millions of Years”
This roll-call of creation-believing scientists dispels the common myth that a bias to evolution and long ages is the only “scientific” option.
Six Days or Millions of Years?
“Every word of God proves true …” (Prov. 30:5) Explore solid, biblical reasons to believe and defend that Genesis 1 speaks of 6 literal, 24-hour days.
Millions of Years & the Downfall of the Christian West
Where did the idea of millions of years really come from? Here is the concise and compelling historical answer.
Reference
John Thackray, The Age of the Earth, Institute of Geological Sciences, London, p. 21, 1980. Return to text.
Help keep these daily articles coming. Find out how to support AiG.
Creation Archive > Volume 3 Issue 4 > New Testament doctrines and the creation basis
First published:
Creation 3(4):39–45
November 1980
Browse this issue
New Testament doctrines and the creation basis
by Rev. D. Swincer
My primary concern in this article is the credibility of the Word of God, and the power of that Word to meet man's basic needs. To state this concern I draw especially on the Biblical account of man's creation and fall into sin and death.
Scientifically, it is regarded as a mark of integrity to present the facts and to form the model best harmonizing with those facts. I believe this to be true and I believe Creation is the best model. However, it seems that because the creation model is based on the Bible it is largely ignored. It is not that it has been tried and found wanting—but to too great a degree it has been disregarded.
Sir Arthur Keith expressed his view of Biblical creation when he said,
'Evolution is unproved and unprovable but we believe it because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable',
thus showing that an evolutionist can be at the same time unscientific and a 'believer'.
Professor D.M.S. Watson (Johannesburg, 1919) stated:
'We maintain this theory not because it has been observed to occur and is supported by logically coherent arguments but because the alternative, special creation, is unthinkable.'
Today, man still refuses to accept personal responsibility towards the message of the Bible and the God of the Bible, under the guise that science disproves the Word of God. It is not considered a credible book because the light of the all-pervading model of humanistic evolution now illumines the globe.
Sadly, much prejudice, even opposition, comes from within the Christian church. Concerning the liberal movement within the church, Dr. Francis Schaeffer writes:
'The real issue is whether one believes that the Bible gives factual truth from God: or whether it grew up as a cultural expression of the writer's day—i.e. that it was some sort of evolutionary development.'
For the Christian pastor, or teacher, or the individual believer, it is difficult to go 'into all the world and preach the Gospel' to people who already believe it to be irrelevant. Hence my concern for the credibility of the Word of God.
How do we interpret the first half of the book of Genesis and how does our interpretation relate to New Testament doctrines? In considering this question, it must be remembered that doctrine is based on exposition of Scripture, which itself is established upon an objective scientific understanding of the text. This exegesis requires, not a literal translation or application, but a literal interpretation.
Before the menace of the evolutionary hypothesis presented itself, about 500 years ago, Biblical scholars saw no need to consider the possibility of a gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. However, in time the threat asserted itself and with it came the unfortunate desire to accommodate the humanistic evolutionary theory.
The length of the days of creation did not traditionally pose a problem. That problem unfolded itself also in time as man began to subjectively question the content of the Bible. However, if the exegesis of the Bible is subjected to man's anti-supernatural bias, can it not have unlimited interpretations based on man's whims and fancies? Does it not then cease to be God's objective revelation? If we are going to honestly conduct an exegesis on a passage of Scripture then we ought to allow it to stand literally as it is written. It is wonderful that God has effectively communicated to man through His Word, so that all can understand His interest in His creation and respond to that Word without the help of other aids. Therefore, it can be said that true exegesis allows for a basically literal interpretation.
Consider the discussion regarding Genesis 1–11 as to what type of literature this passage contains: myth, allegory, or true history. The record presented in this passage reveals God as the all powerful Participant. Since God can have no more complex counterpart of Himself, it is impossible to allegorise this passage. God's testimony is clearly set out—'God said', 'God saw', 'God moved', 'God divided', 'God called', 'God made'. To treat God's testimony literally is to take the creation of Eve for Adam's sake literally; also the meaning of 'day'.
Unless the foundation of Genesis 1–11 is literally what it says it is, many New Testament doctrines fall and the integrity of the whole Word of God is at stake. Furthermore, God's testimony concerning Himself as Participator is flatly denied. Surely a denial of God in one part of the Bible produces profound impact on our responses to other parts of His Word—and affects the way we think and behave.
Let us consider then what the New Testament says on the subject.
1.The Doctrine of Creation:
(a) The Lord Jesus Christ Himself is the Agent of all creation.
John 1:3 says: 'All things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made.' And in John 1:10 a similar truth is stated, 'The world became through Him.' In writing to the Colossians, Paul declared 'for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him' Col. 1:16, cf. Ex. 20: 11 and Heb. 1:2.
(b) God has Purpose in Creation
The last phrase in Col. 1:16 denotes that 'all things have been created through Him and for Him.' The aged John wrote on Patmos (Rev. 4: 11): 'Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou has created all things and for thy pleasure they are and were created.'
All things exist for God's purpose and especially does this relate to man. Man is more than the pinnacle of creation—man is its very purpose. The fantastic created environment is simply the setting for that purpose, man, to walk in. And what is God's exalted purpose for man? Micah, the Old Testament prophet described it: 'to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God.' There is a quality, a characteristic essential to the being of man, something which sets him totally apart from the creation God placed him in, and that is stated simply in one brief word, 'trust'. Over and above every other characteristic, trust is essential to personhood. When God created man, he fashioned him to have trust. In Eden Satan inveigled himself at the level of man's trust, asking 'Hath God said?' ('is God trustworthy?'). 'Don't trust', was the basis of temptation.
God's unchanging purpose in creation is man, and His desire was and is that man should live in relationship with Himself at the level of trust. This basic creation truth is seen right through the New Testament and we miss out on the purpose of life if it remains hidden from us.
(c) God Sustains His Creation
This doctrine has also been called 'The Doctrine of Providence'. God did not set creation going like a clock, only to allow it to run down. There is continuity in His work. Col. 1:17 says: 'And he is before all things, and by him all things consists' (or 'hold together'). Apart from God's sustaining power, the whole created universe would fall apart.
(d) Our Response in Worship
This concept of creation found in the New Testament, that Jesus Christ is the Agent, that man is the purpose, and that God is the Sustainer, leads to the question, 'what should be man's response?' It has already been indicated that God made man to live in a relationship of trust towards Himself. The Psalmist exclaimed (148:5): 'Let them praise the name of the Lord: for he commanded, and they were created.' So there is a doctrine of a worship response from the creature, man, towards his Creator, God. The New testament, (Rev. 4: 11), supports the reason for that response—'Thou art worthy . . .'
(e) Creation is a Revelation of God
In the introduction to his gospel John wrote, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' Having considered this verse, it is suggested we now relate it to v. 14, 'The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.' The One who was the Word, the Creator Himself, became the revelation of God to man. Paul states (Rom. 1:20): 'For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead so that they are without excuse.'
2. Creation Ex Nihilo (out of nothing)
The writer of the letter to the Hebrew Christians stated (Heb. 11:3) that the universe 'was formed by a word of God so that we understand that what became or came into existence, or is seen, was not from things appearing.' It is significant that this is consistent with Old Testament doctrine. Psalm 33:6 & 9—'By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth . . . for he spoke and it was done; he commanded and it stood fast.' Creation was accomplished by His Word. All creation cannot be other than instantaneous. Nothing can be in a state of becoming. A thing either is or isn't. There is no in-between state. From the point where it is not to where it is, is instantaneous. People are threatened by the concept that God acted quickly. Even if God created just one molecule per year so that the work was spread out, it is still a fact that creation per se is instantaneous.
3. Creation of Adam and Eve
(a) First, let us look at Adam as an individual person—'one man'.
This concept relates to our teaching on original sin—(not to be confused with the doctrine on 'the origin of sin.') The doctrine of original sin deals with the reason why men and women have a universal propensity towards evil. Paul writes (Rom. 5:12)—'As by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin so death hath passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.' 'Death passed upon all men', not because Adam sinned first (we are notorious for blaming him), but simply because all have sinned.
Another aspect of the individual Adam was bara creation—bara a word only occurring the creation account in Gen. 1:1, 21, 27—i.e. three times—a word referring to a specific creative act of God where there is no intermediate process.
The man—the individual. Gen. 2:19-23a and Gen. 5:5
In the New Testament genealogies, Luke quotes Genesis—in Luke 3:23–38, in which the specific individuals are recorded back to Adam. The Adam individual lived 930 years. (Gen. 5:5) The Luke genealogy covers a time of thousands, not millions, of years. Tribes and clans are not referred to in genealogies but individuals belonging to each generation.
(b) Not only is Adam referred to as an individual—but as the first individual.
(i) Adam—the first individual. Paul in 1 Cor. 15:45 writes 'the first man Adam'. This reference by Paul to Adam opposes the idea of any 'pre-Adamic' man necessary to substantiate any gap theory.
Does not any prior creation deny Genesis as Genesis? 'The first man Adam was a living soul, the second Adam a living giving spirit' (2 Cor. 15: 45). This is a very significant verse in relation to the whole view of creation because it rules out any pre-Adamic man. If there were a pre-Adamic race, then the Bible cannot be trusted.
(ii) Adam was before Eve. 1 Tim. 2:13—'For Adam was first formed, then Eve'. Writing to the Corinthians Paul reminded his readers that 'the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man' (1 Cor. 11:8,9).
(iii) Adam—specific flesh. Beyond the thought of Adam as an individual first man, there lies the teaching regarding his specific flesh . . . 'All flesh is not the same flesh: out there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, . . . '(1 Cor. 15:39).
(iv) Eve—a special creation. Regarding the creation of Eve, again I suggest we have to accept literally what the Word of God says. Either the creation of Eve was a special creation or it was a myth. However, if evolutionary development were taking place there would be no purpose or need for a special creation because production of males and females would spasmodically occur in all generations. Yet in the Genesis account we see Adam a single individual for whom God goes to great pain in bringing all those living creatures before Him, but finding none suitable as a help fit for him. So Adam remained alone, and God saw that he needed a companion. And so God undertakes His second creative act. When the Word of God says that 'male and female created He them', that is exactly what it means. Each was an individual creative act of God. Notice here that mankind is only mankind insofar as it is a complementary relationship of man and woman, not equal but complementary.
(v) Adam and Eve Naked. Genesis 2:25 describes the innocence before the fall in one word—'unashamed'. This is mentioned here because later when God clothed them, it was for moral necessity, not for physical protection. This moral need for clothing has prevailed ever since. Very few primitive tribes have been discovered who go totally naked. As an expression of rebellion and defiance towards God some 'civilised' people attempt to bypass the cross of Christ simply by throwing off their clothes. They think they can go back to a state of being unashamed by ignoring the necessity of the cross, i.e. the fact of sin.
4. The responsibility of Man
(a) From within the concept of man's being made in the image of God, two ideas emerge—'spirit' and 'likeness'—the idea of 'spirit' containing the thought of an exact replica—and 'likeness' containing the thought of similarity. Without pressing these thoughts too far, it nevertheless must be affirmed that we are spiritual beings, as God is a spiritual being. 'Similarity' however, suggests we are alike, but not exactly like Him. Man's ability to make a choice emphasizes our 'likeness' to God. Man is not a machine. He was given the ability to trust, to choose, and the opportunity to exercise these abilities in relation to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Adam and Eve refused this responsibility of trust and their failure resulted in sin, and so sin passed upon all men; all men however, having the individual responsibility for being sinners. Death entered too as a result of this failure (1 Cor. 15:21–22 and Rom. 5:12).
A pre-Adamic race, or any evolutionary process, would require that when Adam was made, all previously existing life forms would still be alive since death was unknown. Now that would hardly be evolutionary because selective advantages could not be in process of happening. New Testament doctrine lays down the thesis that death is the result of sin and therefore not something built in, as it were, with creation and its deterioration. That of course is consistent with our Second Law of Thermodynamics.
(b) Besides being made in the image of God, man was created with authority—so another responsibility is laid upon mankind—i.e. the responsibility to exercise dominion over the created order (Gen. 1:28). Adam had this authority uniquely. In the New Testament (Heb. 2:7), this delegated power is reinforced. Notice however, that it is only a derived power (1 Cor. 11: 3). Because of sin, mankind by and large does not recognise the hierarchy of authority but any dominion that is exercised responsibly is recognised as being derived from God. Any failure to recognise God means an abuse of authority which we see with tragic and widespread results today.
I believe the acceptance of the authority as described in 1 Cor. 11:3 is fundamental to embracing the Gospel.
5. Miracles
All the miracles recorded in the New Testament required instantaneous creative action. At the marriage feast in Cane, the water was made wine. What did not exist at one moment was made to exist, and it happened instantaneously. The water needed an ingredient God alone could give. The Creator/God acted in New Testament days as in Old Testament days.
Lepers were healed instantly (Matt. 8:4).
Lazarus was called forth from the tomb and obeyed at once (Some sort or considerable creative activity of a significant scale is indicated here, since Lazarus had been dead four days.) (John 11:43).
The blind man saw (Mark 8:25, John 9:32).
The loaves and fishes multiplied in an instantaneously continuing action of creation.
All these things happened of that 'which did not appear'. The purpose of the miracles was to reveal God's glory (John 2:11), just as creation was to reveal God's glory as Paul wrote to the Roman Christians (Rom. 1:20).
It is important to grasp that there was instantaneous creative ability of the same God through the same Christ who had worked together with the Father in the beginning. In that way the miracles are quite natural. Let us especially appreciate the purpose: that God's glory might be revealed.
One further point is drawn from the concept of miracles—which is that of the mature age creation, or as some writers express it, 'the superficial appearance of age'. Furthermore, let us note that God created man—Adam, the individual—a mature man; and gave him Eve—a mature woman.
6. Future Hope
Rom. 8:19–23 gives a clear account of the reversal of the fall. The creation waits eagerly, expectantly, for the sons of God to be revealed.
The whole universe is hanging on tenterhooks, as it were, in hopeful anticipation of the second coming of Christ. We are hoping, waiting, longing—but creation is also, for that will mean its release from bondage as well. 'For the creation was subjected to frustration (a painful experience), not by its own choice but by the will of one who subjected it' (Rom. 8:20).
When man sinned, God placed creation under that deterioration—so creation at His coming will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
Also, obviously inherent in this reversal of deterioration in creation, is the restoration of all things. God in intervention will turn it back and that will come through judgment. 2 Peter 3:9–12 deals with this aspect leading to the restoration.
To look at these facts, to understand what they say, means to do something about it. An alternative model for evolution would be a dead end if no response is forthcoming. Peter referred to this restoration in his sermon in Acts 3:19–21—' Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old.'
Help keep these daily articles coming. Find out how to support AiG.
The history of the teaching of human female inferiority in Darwinism
by Jerry Bergman
Summary
A review of the most prominent late 19th century writings by biologists focusing on Charles Darwin reveals that a major plank of evolution theory was the belief that women were intellectually and physically inferior to men. Female inferiority was a logical conclusion of the natural selection worldview because men were exposed to far greater selective pressures than women, especially in war, competition for mates, food and clothing. Conversely, women were protected from evolutionary selection by norms which dictated that men were to provide for and protect women and children. Darwinists taught that as a result of this protection, natural selection operated far more actively on males, producing male superiority in virtually all skill areas. As a result, males evolved more than females. The female inferiority doctrine is an excellent example of the armchair logic that has often been more important in establishing evolutionary theory than fossil and other empirical evidence.
Introduction
The central mechanism of Darwinism is natural selection of the fittest, requiring differences in organisms from which nature can select. As a result of natural selection, inferior organisms are more likely to become extinct, and the superior groups are more likely to thrive and leave a greater number of offspring.1
The biological racism of late 19th century Darwinism is now both well documented and widely publicized. Especially influential in the development of biological racism was the theory of eugenics developed by Charles Darwin’s cousin, Sir Francis Galton.2,3
Less widely known is that many evolutionists, including Darwin, taught that women were biologically and intellectually inferior to men. The intelligence gap that Darwinists believed existed between males and females was not minor, but of a level that caused some evolutionists to classify the sexes as two distinct psychological species, males as homo frontalis and females as homo parietalis.4 Darwin himself concluded that the differences between male and female humans were so enormous that he was amazed that ‘such different beings belong to the same species’ and he was surprised that ‘even greater differences still had not been evolved.’5
Sexual selection was at the core of evolution, and female inferiority was its major proof and its chief witness. Darwin concluded that males were like animal breeders, shaping women to their liking by sexual selection.6 In contrast, war pruned weaker men, allowing only the strong to come home and reproduce. Men were also the hunting specialists, an activity that pruned weaker men. Women by contrast, ‘specialized in the “gathering” part of the primitive economy.’7
Male superiority was so critical for evolution that George stated:
‘The male rivalry component of sexual selection was “the key,” Darwin believed, to the evolution of man: of all the causes which have led to the differences … between the races of man … sexual selection has been the most efficient.’ 8
Natural selection struggles existed between groups, but were ‘even more intense among members of the same species, which have similar needs and rely upon the same territory to provide them with food and mates.’9 For years, evolution theorists commonly taught that the intense struggle for mates within the same species was a major factor in producing male superiority.
Darwin’s ideas, as elucidated in his writings, had a major impact on society and science. Richards concluded that Darwin’s views about women followed from evolutionary theory, ‘thereby nourishing several generations of scientific sexism.’10 Morgan added that Darwin inspired scientists to use biology, ethnology and primatology to support the theories of women’s ‘manifestly inferior and irreversibly subordinate’ status.11
The reasons justifying the belief in the biological inferiority of women are complex, but Darwinism was a major factor, especially Darwin’s natural and sexual selection ideas. The extent of the doctrine’s effect can be gauged by the fact that the inferiority-of-women conclusion has heavily influenced theorists from Sigmund Freud to Havelock Ellis, who have had a major role in shaping our generation.12 As eloquently argued by Durant, both racism and sexism were central to evolution:
‘Darwin introduced his discussion of psychology in the Descent by reasserting his commitment to the principle of continuity … [and] … Darwin rested his case upon a judicious blend of zoomorphic and anthropomorphic arguments. Savages, who were said to possess smaller brains and more prehensile limbs than the higher races, and whose lives were said to be dominated more by instinct and less by reason … were placed in an intermediate position between nature and man; and Darwin extended this placement by analogy to include not only children and congenital idiots but also women, some of whose powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation were “characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization”’ (Descent 1871:326–327).13
Darwin’s personal life
Darwin’s theory may have reflected his personal attitudes toward women and non-Caucasian races. When Darwin was concerned that his son Erasmus might marry a young lady named Martineau, he wrote that if Erasmus married her he would not be:
‘… much better than her “******.”—Imagine poor Erasmus a ****** to so philosophical and energetic a lady … . Martineau had just returned from … America, and was full of married women’s property rights … . Perfect equality of rights is part of her doctrine … . We must pray for our poor “******” … Martineau didn’t become a Darwin.’14
Among the more telling indications of Darwin’s attitudes toward women were the statements he penned as a young man, which listed what he saw as the advantages of marriage, including children and a
‘… constant companion, (friend in old age) who will feel interested in one, object to be beloved and played with—better than a dog anyhow—Home, and someone to take care of house—Charms of music and female chit-chat. These things good for one’s health (emphasis mine).’ 15
Conflicts that Darwin perceived marriage would cause him included: ‘how should I manage all my business if I were obligated to go every day walking with my wife—Eheu!’ He added that as a married man he would be a ‘poor slave … worse than a *****’ but then reminisced that ‘One cannot live this solitary life, with groggy old age, friendless and cold and childless staring one in one’s face … .’ Darwin concluded his evaluation on the philosophical note: ‘There is many a happy slave’ and shortly thereafter, in 1839, he married his cousin, Emma Wedgewood.16
To Brent, Darwin’s comments revealed a low opinion of women: ‘It would be hard to conceive of a more self-indulgent, almost contemptuous, view of the subservience of women to men.’17 Richards’ analysis of Darwin’s thoughts was as follows:
‘From the onset he [Darwin] embarked on the married state with clearly defined opinions on women’s intellectual inferiority and her subservient status. A wife did not aspire to be her husband’s intellectual companion, but rather to amuse his leisure hours … . … and look after his person and his house, freeing and refreshing him for more important things. These views are encapsulated in the notes the then young and ambitious naturalist jotted not long before he found his “nice soft wife on a sofa” … (although throughout their life together it was Charles who monopolized the sofa, not Emma).’18
The major intellectual justification Darwin offered for his conclusions about female inferiority was found in The Descent of Man. In this work, Darwin argued that the ‘adult female’ in most species resembled the young of both sexes, and also that ‘males are more evolutionarily advanced than females.’19 Since female evolution progressed slower then male evolution, a woman was ‘in essence, a stunted man.’20 This view of women rapidly spread to Darwin’s scientific and academic contemporaries.
Darwin’s contemporary anthropologist, Allan McGrigor, concluded that women are less evolved than men and ‘… physically, mentally and morally, woman is a kind of adult child … it is doubtful if women have contributed one profound original idea of the slightest permanent value to the world.’21 Carl Vogt, professor of natural history at the University of Geneva, also accepted many of ‘the conclusions of England’s great modern naturalist, Charles Darwin.’
Vogt argued that ‘the child, the female, and the senile White’ all had the intellectual features and personality of the ‘grown up *****,’ and that in intellect and personality the female was similar to both infants and the ‘lower’ races.22 Vogt concluded that human females were closer to the lower animals than males and had ‘a greater’ resemblance to apes than men.23 He believed that the gap between males and females became greater as civilizations progressed, and was greatest in the advanced societies of Europe.24 Darwin was ‘impressed by Vogt’s work and proud to number him among his advocates.’25
Sexual selection
Darwin taught that the differences between men and women were due partly, or even largely, to sexual selection. A male must prove himself physically and intellectually superior to other males in the competition for females to pass his genes on, whereas a woman must only be superior in sexual attraction. Darwin also concluded that ‘sexual selection depended on two different intraspecific activities: the male struggle with males for possession of females; and female choice of a mate.’26 In Darwin’s words, evolution depended on ‘a struggle of individuals of one sex, generally males, for the possession of the other sex.’27
To support this conclusion, Darwin used the example of Australian ‘savage’ women who were the ‘constant cause of war both between members of the same tribe and distinct tribes,’ producing sexual selection due to sexual competition.28 Darwin also cited the North American Indian custom, which required the men to wrestle male competitors in order to retain their wives, to support his conclusion that ‘the strongest party always carries off the prize.’29 Darwin concluded that as a result, a weaker man was ‘seldom permitted to keep a wife that a stronger man thinks worth his notice.’29
Darwin used other examples to illustrate the evolutionary forces which he believed produced men of superior physical and intellectual strength on the one hand, and sexually coy, docile women on the other. Since humans evolved from animals, and ‘no one disputes that the bull differs in disposition from the cow, the wild-boar from the sow, the stallion from the mare, and, as is well known to the keepers of menageries, the males of the larger apes from the females,’ Darwin argued similar differences existed among humans.30 Consequently, the result was that man is ‘more courageous, pugnacious and energetic than woman, and has more inventive genius.’31
Throughout his life, Darwin held these male supremacist views, which he believed were a critical expectation of evolution.32 Darwin stated shortly before his death that he agreed with Galton’s conclusion that ‘education and environment produce only a small effect’ on the mind of most women because ‘most of our qualities are innate.’33 In short, Darwin believed, as do some sociobiologists today, that biology rather than the environment was the primary source of behaviour, morals and all mental qualities.34 Obviously, Darwin almost totally ignored the critical influence of culture, family environment, constraining social roles, and the fact that, in Darwin’s day, relatively few occupational and intellectual opportunities existed for women.35
Darwin attributed most female traits to male sexual selection. Traits he concluded were due to sexual selection included human torso-shape, limb hairlessness and the numerous other secondary sexual characteristics that differentiate humans from all other animals. What remained unanswered was why males or females would select certain traits in a mate when they had been successfully mating with hair covered mates for aeons, and no non-human primate preferred these human traits? In this case Darwin ‘looked for a single cause to explain all the facts.’36 If sexual selection caused the development of a male beard and its lack on females, why do women often prefer clean-shaven males? Obviously, cultural norms were critical in determining what was considered sexually attractive, and these standards change, precluding the long-term sexual selection required to biologically develop them.37,38
Proponents of this argument for women’s inferiority used evidence such as the fact that a higher percentage of both the mentally deficient and mentally gifted were males. They reasoned that since selection operated to a greater degree on men, the weaker males would be more rigorously eliminated than weaker females, raising the level of males. The critics argued that sex-linked diseases, as well as social factors, were major influences in producing the higher number of males judged feebleminded. Furthermore, the weaker females would be preserved by the almost universal norms that protected them.
A major reason so few women were defined as eminent was because their social role often confined them to housekeeping and child rearing. Also, constraints on the education and employment of women, by both law and custom, rendered comparisons between males and females of little value in determining innate abilities. Consequently, measures of intelligence, feeblemindedness, eminence, and occupational success should not have been related to biology without factoring out these critical factors.
The arguments for women’s inferiority, which once seemed well supported (and consequently were accepted by most theorists), were later shown to be invalid as illustrated by the changes in western society that occurred in the last generation.39 Hollingworth’s103 1914 work was especially important in discrediting the variability hypothesis. She found that the female role as homemaker enabled feebleminded women to better survive outside an institutional setting, and this is why institutional surveys located fewer female inmates.
The influence of Darwin on society
The theory of the natural and sexual selection origin of both the body and mind had major consequences on society soon after Darwin completed his first major work on evolution in 1859. In Shields’ words, ‘the leitmotiv of evolutionary theory as it came to be applied to the social sciences was the evolutionary supremacy of the Caucasian male.’40
One of the then leading evolutionists, Joseph LeConte, even concluded that differences between male and female resulting from organic evolution must also apply to distinct societal roles for each sex.41 Consequently, LeConte opposed women’s suffrage because evolution made women ‘incapable of dealing rationally with political and other problems which required emotional detachment and clear logic.’42
Their innate belief in the inferiority of females was strongly supported by biological determinism and the primacy of nature over nurture doctrine. After reviewing the once widely accepted tabula rasa theory, in which the environment was taught to be responsible for personality, Fisher noted that Darwinism caused a radical change in society:
‘… the year in which Darwin finished the first unpublished version of his theory of natural selection [1842], Herbert Spencer began to publish essays on human nature. Spencer was a British political philosopher and social scientist who believed that human social order was the result of evolution. The mechanism by which social order arose was “survival of the fittest,” a term he, not Darwin, introduced. In 1850, Spencer wrote “Social Statistics,” a treatise in which he … opposed welfare systems, compulsory sanitation, free public schools, mandatory vaccinations, and any form of “poor law.” Why? Because social order had evolved by survival of the fittest. The rich were rich because they were more fit; certain nations dominated others because these peoples were naturally superior; certain racial types subjugated others because they were smarter. Evolution, another word he popularized, had produced superior classes, nations, and races.’43
Fisher added that the early evolutionist’s teaching included not only ideas of superior race but also superior sex; conclusions that the male sex dominated and controlled females due to evolution. Darwin taught that a major reason for male superiority was that males fought and died to protect both themselves and their females.44 As a consequence, males were subjected to a greater selection pressure than females because they had to fight for survival in such dangerous, male-orientated activities as war and hunting.
In the late 1800’s, the inferiority-of-women doctrine was taken for granted by most scientists to be a major proof of evolution by natural selection. Gould claimed that ‘almost all scientists’ then believed that Blacks, women, and other groups were intellectually inferior, and biologically closer to the lower animals.45 Nor were these scientists simply repeating their cultural prejudices. They attempted to support their belief of female inferiority with supposedly empirical research as well as evolutionary speculation.
Female brain capacity believed inferior
One approach seized upon, to scientifically demonstrate that females were generally inferior to males, was to prove that their brain capacity was smaller. Researchers first endeavoured to demonstrate smaller female cranial capacity by skull measurements, and then tried to prove that brain capacity was causally related to intelligence—a far more difficult task.46 Darwin justified this approach for proving female inferiority by explaining:
‘As the various mental faculties gradually developed themselves, the brain would almost certainly become larger. … the large proportion which the size of man’s brain bears to his body, compared to the same proportion in the gorilla or orang, is closely connected with his higher mental powers … . … that there exists in man some close relation between the size of the brain and the development of the intellectual faculties is supported by the comparison of the skulls of savage and civilized races, of ancient and modern people, and by the analogy of the whole vertebrate series.’47
One of the most eminent of the numerous early researchers who used craniology to ‘prove’ intellectual inferiority of women was Paul Broca (1824–1880), a professor of surgery at the Paris Faculty of Medicine. He was a leader in the development of physical anthropology as a science, and one of Europe’s most esteemed anthropologists. In 1859, he founded the prestigious Anthropological Society.48 A major preoccupation of this society was measuring various human traits, including skulls, to ‘delineate human groups and assess their relative worth.’49 Broca concluded that in humans, the brain is larger in
‘… men than in women, in eminent men than in men of mediocre talent, in superior races than in inferior races50 … Other things equal, there is a remarkable relationship between the development of intelligence and the volume of the brain.’51
In an extensive review of Broca’s work, Gould concluded that Broca’s conclusions only reflected ‘the shared assumptions of most successful white males during his time—themselves on top … and women, Blacks, and poor people below.’52 How did Broca arrive at these conclusions? Gould responded that ‘his facts were reliable … but they were gathered selectively and then manipulated unconsciously in the service of prior conclusions.’ One would have been that women were intellectually and otherwise demonstratively inferior to men as evolution predicted. Broca’s own further research and the changing social climate later caused him to modify his views, concluding that culture was more important than he had first assumed.53
A modern study by Van Valen, which Jensen concluded was the ‘most thorough and methodologically sophisticated recent review of all the evidence relative to human brain size and intelligence,’ found that the best estimate of the within-sex correlation between brain size and I.Q. ‘may be as high as 0.3.’54,55 A correlation of 0.3 accounts for only 9% of the variance between the sexes, a difference that may be more evidence for test bias and culture than biological inferiority. Schluter showed that claimed racial and sexual differences in brain size ‘are accounted for by a simple artifact of the statistical methods employed.’56
Overturning the inferiority-of-women doctrine
Although some contemporary critics of Darwin effectively argued against his conclusions, the inferiority-of-women doctrine and the subordinate position of women was long believed. Only in the 1970s was the doctrine increasingly scientifically investigated as never before.57,58 Modern critics of Darwinism were often motivated by the women’s movement to challenge especially Darwin’s conclusion that evolution has produced males and females who were considerably different, and men who ‘were superior to women both physically and mentally.’59 Their critiques demonstrated major flaws in the evidence used to prove female inferiority and, as a result, identified fallacies in major aspects of Darwinism itself.60 For example, Fisher argued that the whole theory of natural selection was questionable, and quoted Chomsky, who said that the process by which the human mind achieved its present state of complexity was
‘a total mystery … . It is perfectly safe to attribute this development to “natural selection,” so long as we realize that there is no substance to this assertion, that it amounts to nothing more than a belief that there is some naturalistic explanation for these phenomena.’ 61
She also argued that modern genetic research has undermined several major aspects of Darwin’s hypothesis—especially his sexual selection theory. In contrast to the requirement for Darwinism, in reality, even if natural selection were to operate differentially on males and females, males would pass on many of their superior genes to both their sons and daughters because most ‘genes are not inherited along sexual lines.’ Aside from the genes which are on the Y chromosome, ‘a male offspring receives genes from both mother and father.’62
Darwin and his contemporaries had little knowledge of genetics, but this did not prevent them from making sweeping conclusions about evolution. Darwin even made the claim that the characteristics acquired by sexual selection are usually confined to one sex.63 Yet, Darwin elsewhere recognized that women could ‘transmit most of their characteristics, including some beauty, to their offspring of both sexes,’ a fact he ignored in much of his writing.64 Darwin even claimed that many traits, including genius and the higher powers of imagination and reason, are ‘transmitted more fully to the male than to the female offspring.’65
The contribution of Darwin to sexism
Even though Darwin’s theory advanced biologically based racism and sexism, some argue that he would not approve of, and could not be faulted for, the results of his theory. Many researchers went far beyond Darwin. Darwin’s cousin, Galton, for instance, concluded from his life-long study on the topic, that ‘women tend in all their capacities to be inferior to men (emphasis mine).’66 Richards concluded that recent studies emphasized ‘the central role played by economic and political factors in the reception of evolutionary theory,’ but Darwinism also provided ‘the intellectual underpinnings of imperialism, war, monopoly, capitalism, militant eugenics, and racism and sexism,’ and therefore ‘Darwin’s own part in this was not insignificant, as has been so often asserted.’67
After noting that Darwin believed that the now infamous social-Darwinist, Spencer, was ‘by far the greatest living philosopher in England,’ Fisher concluded that the evidence for the negative effects of evolutionary teaching on history were unassailable:
‘Europeans were spreading out to Africa, Asia, and America, gobbling up land, subduing the natives and even massacring them. But any guilt they harbored now vanished. Spencer’s evolutionary theories vindicated them … . Darwin’s Origin of Species, published in 1859, delivered the coup de grace. Not only racial, class, and national differences but every single human emotion was the adaptive end product of evolution, selection, and survival of the fittest.’ 68
These Darwinian conclusions of biology about females
‘… squared with other mainstream scholarly conclusions of the day. From anthropology to neurology, science had demonstrated that the female Victorian virtues of passivity, domesticity, and greater morality ( … less sexual activity) were rooted in female biology.’ 69
Consequently, many people concluded that: ‘evolutionary history has endowed women with domestic and nurturing genes and men with professional ones.’70
The conclusion of the evolutionary inferiority of women is so ingrained in biology that Morgan concludes that researchers tended to avoid ‘the whole subject of biology and origins,’ hoping that this embarrassing history will be ignored and scientists can ‘concentrate on ensuring that in the future things will be different.’71 Even evolutionary women scientists largely ignore the Darwinian inferiority theory.72,73
Morgan stresses that we simply cannot ignore evolutionary biology because the belief of the ‘jungle heritage and the evolution of man as a hunting carnivore has taken root in man’s mind as firmly as Genesis ever did.’ Males have ‘built a beautiful theoretical construction, with himself on top of it, buttressed with a formidable array of scientifically authenticated facts.’ She argues that these ‘facts’ must be reevaluated because scientists have ‘sometimes gone astray’ due to prejudice and philosophical proscriptions.74 Morgan states that the prominent evolutionary view of women as biologically inferior to men must still be challenged, even though scores of researchers have adroitly overturned this Darwinian theory.
The influence of culture on the Darwinists’ view of women
Culture was of major importance in shaping Darwin’s theory.75 Victorian middle-class views about men were blatant in The Descent of Man and other evolutionists’ writings. The Darwinian concept of male superiority served to increase the secularization of society, and made more palatable the acceptance of the evolutionary naturalist view that humans were created by natural law rather than by divine direction.76 Naturalism was also critically important in developing the women-inferiority doctrine, as emphasized by Richards:
‘Darwin’s consideration of human sexual differences in The Descent was not motivated by the contemporary wave of anti-feminism … but was central to his naturalistic explanation of human evolution. It was his theoretically directed contention that human mental and moral characteristics had arisen by natural evolutionary processes which predisposed him to ground these characteristics in nature rather than nurture—to insist on the biological basis of mental and moral differences … .’ 77
A major method used to attack the evolutionary conclusion of female inferiority was to critique the evidence for Darwinism itself. Fisher, for example, noted that it was difficult to postulate theories about human origins on the actual brain organization
‘… of our presumed fossil ancestors, with only a few limestone impregnated skulls—most of them bashed, shattered, and otherwise altered by the passage of millions of years … [and to arrive at any valid conclusions on the basis of this] evidence, would seem to be astronomical.’ 78
Hubbard added that ‘Darwin’s sexual stereotypes’ were still commonly found
‘… in the contemporary literature on human evolution. This is a field in which facts are few and specimens are separated by hundreds of thousands of years, so that maximum leeway exists for investigator bias.’ 79
She then discussed our ‘overwhelming ignorance’ about human evolution and the fact that much which is currently accepted is pure speculation. Many past attempts to disprove the evolutionary view that women were intellectually inferior, similarly attacked the core of evolutionary theory itself. A belief in female inferiority is inexorably bound up with human group inferiority, which must first exist for natural selection to operate. Evaluations of the female inferiority theory have produced incisive, well-reasoned critiques of both sexual and natural selection and also Darwinism as a whole.80
Evolution can be used to argue for male superiority, but it can also be used to build a case for the opposite. The evolutionary evidence leaves so many areas for ‘individual interpretation’ that some feminist authors, and others, have read the data as proving the evolutionary superiority of women by using ‘the same evolutionary story to draw precisely the opposite conclusion.’81 One notable, early example is Montagu’s classic 1952 book, The Natural Superiority of Women. Some female biologists have even argued for a gynaecocentric theory of evolution, concluding that women are the trunk of evolution history, and men are but a branch, a grafted scion.82 Others have tried to integrate reformed ‘Darwinist evolutionary “knowledge” with contemporary feminist ideals.’83
Hapgood even concludes that evolution demonstrates that males exist to serve females, arguing that ‘masculinity did not evolve in a vacuum’ but because it was selected. He notes many animal species live without males, and the fact that they do live genderlessly or sexlessly shows that ‘males are unnecessary’ in certain environments.84 It is the woman that reproduces, and evolution teaches that survival is important only to the degree that it promotes reproduction. So Hapgood argues that evolution theory should conclude that males evolved only to serve females in all aspects of child bearing and nurturing. This includes both to ensure that the female becomes pregnant and that her progeny are taken care of.
Another revisionist theory is that women are not only superior, but society was once primarily matriarchal. These revisionists argue that patriarchal domination was caused by factors that occurred relatively recently.85 Of course, the theories that postulate the evolutionary inferiority of males suffer from many of the same problems as those that postulate women’s inferiority.
The use of Darwinism to justify behaviour in conflict with Christianity
Some argue that many of the views Darwin developed should be perpetuated again, to produce a moral system based on the theory of evolution.86 For example, Ford concluded that the idea of eliminating sexism is erroneous:
‘… the much-attacked gender differentiation we see in our societies is actually … a necessary consequence of the constraints exerted by our evolution. There are clear factors which really do make men the more aggressive sex, for instance … .’ 87
After concluding that natural selection resulted in female inferiority, it was often implied that what natural selection produced was natural, and thus proper. It at least gave a ‘certain dignity’ to behaviours that we might ‘otherwise consider aberrant or animalistic.’ 88 For example, evolutionary success was defined as leaving more offspring, and consequently promiscuity in human males was a selected trait.
This explanation is used to justify both male promiscuity and irresponsibility, and argues that trying to change ‘nature’s grand design’ is futile.89 Fox even argues that the high pregnancy rate among unmarried teenage girls today is due to our ‘evolutionary legacy,’ which ‘drives’ young girls to get pregnant.90 Consequently, the authors conclude that cultural and religious prohibitions against unmarried teen pregnancy are doomed to fail.
Eberhard notes that the physical aggressiveness of males is justified by sexual selection, and that: ‘males are more aggressive than females in the sexual activities preceding mating (discussed at length by Darwin 1871 and confirmed many times since …).’ 91 Further, the conclusion ‘now widely accepted … that males of most species are less selective and coy in courtship because they make smaller investments in offspring’ is used to justify male sexual promiscuity.92 Male promiscuity is, in other words, genetically determined and thus is natural or normal because ‘males profit, evolutionarily speaking, from frequent mating, and females do not.’ The more females a male mates with, the more offspring he produces, whereas a female needs to mate only with one male to become pregnant.93 Evolution can progress only if females select the fittest male as predicted by Darwin’s theory of sexual selection. Males for this reason have ‘an undiscriminating eagerness’ to mate whereas females have ‘a discriminating passivity.’93
Conclusions and implications
The Darwinian conclusion that women are inferior has had major unfortunate social consequences. Darwin hypothesized that sexual selection was important in evolution, and along with the data he and his followers gathered to support their inferiority-of-women view, it provided a major support for natural selection.94 Therefore, the disproof of women’s inferiority means that a major mechanism that was originally hypothesized to account for evolutionary advancement is wrong. Today, radically different conclusions are accepted about the intelligence of women, despite using data more complete but similar to that used by Darwin to develop his theory. This vividly demonstrates how important both preconceived ideas and theory are in interpreting data. The women’s evolutionary inferiority conclusion developed partly because:
‘Measurement was glorified as the essential basis of science: both anatomists and psychologists wanted above everything else to be “scientific,” … . Earlier psychological theory had been concerned with those mental operations common to the human race: the men of the nineteenth century were more concerned to describe human differences.’ 95
These human differences were not researched to understand and help society but to justify a theory postulated to support both naturalism and a specific set of social beliefs. The implications of Darwinism cannot be ignored today because the results of this belief were tragic, especially in the area of racism:
‘… it makes for poor history of science to ignore the role of such baggage in Darwin’s science. The time-worn image of the detached and objective observer and theoretician of Down House, remote from the social and political concerns of his fellow Victorians who misappropriated his scientific concepts to rationalize their imperialism, laissez-faire economics, racism and sexism, must now give way before the emerging historical man, whose writings were in many ways so congruent with his social and cultural milieu.’ 96
Hubbard went further and charged Darwin guilty of ‘blatant sexism.’ She placed a major responsibility for scientific sexism, and its mate social Darwinism, squarely at Darwin’s door.97 Advancing knowledge has shown many of Darwin’s ideas were not only wrong but also harmful. Many still adversely affect society today. Hubbard concluded that Darwin ‘provided the theoretical framework within which anthropologists and biologists have ever since been able to endorse the social inequality of the sexes.’98 Consequently, ‘it is important to expose Darwin’s androcentricism, and not only for historical reasons, but because it remains an integral and unquestioned part of contemporary biological theories.’99
Male superiority is critical for evolution. George states that:
‘… the male rivalry component of sexual selection was the key, Darwin believed, to the evolution of man; of all the causes which have led to the differences in external appearance between the races of man, and to a certain extent between man and the lower animals, sexual selection has been the most efficient.’ 100
A critical reason for Darwin’s conclusion was his rejection of the biblical account, which taught that man and woman were specific creations of God, made not to dominate but to complement each other. Darwin believed the human races ‘were the equivalent of the varieties of plants and animals which formed the materials of evolution in the organic world generally,’ and the means that formed the sexes and races were the same struggles that Darwin concluded animals underwent to both survive and mate.101 Having disregarded the biblical view, Darwin needed to replace it with another one, and the one he selected—the struggle of males for possession of females and food—resulted in males competing against other males. He concluded that evolution favoured the most vigorous and sexually aggressive males and caused these traits to be selected because those with these traits usually left more progeny.102
Darwin’s theory of female inferiority was not the result of personal conflicts with women but from his efforts to explain evolution without an intelligent creator. In general, a person’s attitude towards the opposite sex results from poor experiences with that sex. From the available information, this does not appear to have been the situation in Darwin’s case. His marriage was exemplary. The only major difference between Darwin and his wife was in the area of religion, and this caused only minor problems: their devotion to each other is classic in the history of famous people. Further, as far as is known, he had an excellent relationship with all of the other women in his life: his mother and his daughters. Much of Darwin’s hostility to religion and God is attributed to the death of his mother when he was young and to the death of his oldest daughter in 1851, at the age of ten.
Summary
The Christian teaching of the equality of the sexes before God (Gal. 3:28), and the lack of support for the female biological inferiority position, is in considerable contrast to the conclusions derived by evolutionary biology in the middle and late 1800s. In my judgment, the history of these teachings is a clear illustration of the negative impact of social Darwinism.
References and notes
Darwin, C., The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, 1896 edition, D. Appleton and Company, New York, 1871. Return to text.
Bergman, J., Eugenics and the Development of Nazi Race Policy, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 44(2):109–123, June 1992; Darwin and the Nazi race Holocaust, TJ 13(2):101–111, 1999. Return to text.
Stein, G.J., Biological Science and the Roots of Nazism, American Scientists 76:50–58, Jan–Feb 1988. Return to text.
Love, R., Darwinism and Feminism: The ‘Women Question’ in the Life and Work of Olive Schreiner and Charlotte Perkins Gilman; in: Oldroyd and Langham, The Wider Domain of Evolutionary Thought, D. Reidel, Holland, pp. 113–131, 1983. Return to text.
Rosser S.V., Biology and Feminism; A Dynamic Interaction, Twayne Pub., New York, p. 59, 1992. Return to text.
Richards, E., Darwin and the Descent of Women, pp. 78, 57–111; in: Oldroyd, D. and Langham, I. (eds), The Wider Domain of Evolutionary Thought, D. Reidel, Holland, 1983. Return to text.
Dyer, G., War, Crown Publishers, Inc., New York, p. 122, 1985. Return to text.
George, W., Darwin, Fontana Paperbacks, London, p. 136, 1982. Return to text.
Reed, E., Woman’s Evolution: From Matriarchal Clan to Patriarchal Family, Pathfinder Press, New York, p. 45, 1975. Return to text.
Richards, E., Will the real Charles Darwin please stand up? New Scientist 100:884–887, 1983. Return to text.
Morgan, E., The Descent of Woman, Stein and Day, New York, p. 1, 1972. Return to text.
Shields, S.A., Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of women; a study in social myth, American Psychologist 30(1):739–754, 1975. Return to text.
Durant, J.R., The Ascent of Nature; in: Darwin’s Descent of Man; in: The Darwinian Heritage, Kohn, D. (ed.), Princeton University Press, NJ, p. 295, 1985. Return to text.
Desmond, A. and Moore, J., Darwin, Warner Books, New York, p. 201, 1991. Return to text.
Darwin, C., The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809–1882, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., New York, pp. 232–233, 1958. Return to text.
Darwin, Ref. 15, p. 234. Return to text.
Brent, P., Charles Darwin: A Man of Enlarged Curiosity, Harper and Row, New York, p. 247, 1981. Return to text.
Richards, Ref. 10, p. 886. Return to text.
Kevles, B., Females of the Species: Sex and Survival in the Animal Kingdom, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 8, 1986. Return to text.
Shields, Ref. 12, p. 749. Return to text.
McGrigor, A.J., On the real differences in the minds of men and women, Journal of the Anthropological Society 7:210, 1869. Return to text.
Vogt, C., Lectures on Man: His Place in Creation, and the History of Earth, Hunt, J. (ed.), Paternoster Row, Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, London, xv:192, 1864. Return to text.
Lewin, R., Bones of Contention, Simon and Schuster, New York, p. 305, 1987. Return to text.
Richards, Ref. 6, p. 75. Return to text.
Richards, Ref. 6, p. 74. Return to text.
George, Ref. 8, p. 69. Return to text.
Darwin, C., The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, 1897 edition, D. Appleton and Company, New York, p. 108, 1859. Return to text.
Darwin, Ref. 1, p. 561. Return to text.
Darwin, Ref. 1, p. 562. Return to text.
Darwin, Ref. 1, p. 563. Return to text.
Darwin, Ref. 1, p. 557. Return to text.
Richards, Ref. 10, p. 885. Return to text.
Darwin, Ref. 15, p. 43. Return to text.
Richards, Ref. 6, p. 67–68. Return to text.
Williams, G.C., Sex and Evolution, Princeton University Press, NJ, 1977. Return to text.
George, Ref. 8, p. 71. Return to text.
Millman, M., Such a Pretty Face: Being Fat in America, W.W. Norton and Company, NY, 1980. Return to text.
Beller, A.S., Fat & Thin: A Natural History of Obesity, McGraw Hill, New York, 1977. Return to text.
Shields, Ref. 12, pp. 741–745. Return to text.
Shields, Ref. 12, p. 739. Return to text.
Stephens, L.D., Evolution and women’s rights in the 1890s: the views of Joseph LeConte, The Historian 38(2):241, 1976. Return to text.
Stephens, Ref. 41, p. 247. Return to text.
Fisher, H.E., The Sex Contract: The Evolution of Human Behavior, William Morrow and Company, Inc., New York, pp. 115–116, 1982. Return to text.
Darwin, Ref. 1, p. 563. Return to text.
Gould, S.J., The Mismeasure of Man, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, p. 56, 1982. Return to text.
Van Valen, L., Brain Size and Intelligence in Man, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 40:417–423, 1974. Return to text.
Darwin, Ref. 1, p. 54. Return to text.
Fee, E., Nineteenth-Century Craniology: The Study of the Female Skull, Bulletin of the History of Medicine 53:415, 1979. Return to text.
Gould, Ref. 45, p. 83. Return to text.
Gould, Ref. 45, p. 83 (original in French). Return to text.
Gould, Ref. 45, p. 83 (original in French). Return to text.
Gould, Ref. 45, p. 85. Return to text.
Ellis, H., Man and Woman. A Study of Secondary and Tertiary Sexual Characteristics, Heineman, London, 1934 (first published 1896). Return to text.
Jensen, A., Bias in Mental Training, The Free Press, New York, p. 361, 1980. Return to text.
Van Valen, Ref. 46, p. 417. Return to text.
Schluter, D., Brain size differences, Nature 359(6392):181, 1992. Return to text.
Rosser, Ref. 5, pp. 56, 59. Return to text.
Fee, Ref. 48, p. 415. Return to text.
Rosser, Ref. 5, p. 58. Return to text.
Alaya, F., Victorian science and the ‘genius’ of women, Journal of the History of Ideas 38:261–280, 1977. Return to text.
Chomsky, N., Language and Mind, Harcourt, Brace and World, New York, p. 97, 1972. Return to text.
Fisher, E., Woman’s Creation: Sexual Evolution and the Shaping of Society, Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden City, NY, p. 112, 1979. Return to text.
Crook, J.H., Sexual Selection, Dimorphism, and Social Organization in the Primates; in: Campbell B. (ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1871–1971, Aldine Pub. Co., Chicago, 1972. Return to text.
Darwin, Ref. 1, p. 597. Return to text.
Darwin, Ref. 1, p. 565. Return to text.
Shields, Ref. 12, p. 743. Return to text.
Richards, Ref. 6, p. 88. Return to text.
Fisher, Ref. 62, p. 116. Return to text.
Steinem, G., Revolution from Within: A Book of Self-Esteem, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, p. 133, 1992. Return to text.
Hubbard, R., Henifin, M.S. and Fried, B., Women Look at Biology Looking At Women: A Collection of Feminist Critiques, Schenkman Publishing Co., Cambridge, MA, p. 208, 1979. Return to text.
Morgan, Ref. 11, p. 2. Return to text.
Margulis, L. and Sagan, D., Origins of Sex: Three Billion Years of Genetic Recombination, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1986. Return to text.
Tanner, N. and Zihlman, A.Z., Women in evolution. Part I: Innovation and selection in human origins, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 1(3):585–608, 1976. Return to text.
Morgan, Ref. 11, p. 2–3. Return to text.
Rosser, Ref. 5, p. 56. Return to text.
George, Ref. 8. Return to text.
Richards, Ref. 6, p. 97. Return to text.
Fisher, Ref. 62, p. 113. Return to text.
Hubbard, R., Have only men evolved? in: Women Look at Biology Looking At Women, Ed. by R. Hubbard, et al., Boston, p. 26, 1979. Return to text.
Shepherd, L.J., Lifting the Veil: The Feminine Force in Science, Shambhala, Boston, 1993. Return to text.
Love, Ref. 4, p. 124. Return to text.
Hill, M.A., Charlotte Perkins Gilman. The Making of a Radical Feminist 1860–1896, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1980. Return to text.
Hill, Ref. 82, p. 263. Return to text.
Hapgood, F., Why Males Exist: An Inquiry Into the Evolution of Sex, William Morrow and Company, Inc., New York, pp. 23–24, 1979. Return to text.
Reed, Ref. 9, pp. 43–74. Return to text.
Goldberg, S., The Inevitability of Patriarchy: Why the Biological Difference Between Men and Women Always Produces Male Domination, William Morrow & Company, Inc., New York, 1973. Return to text.
Ford, B.J., Patterns of Sex: The Mating Urge and our Sexual Future, St. Martin’s Press, New York, p. 8, 1980. Return to text.
Symons, D., The Evolution of Human Sexuality, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 61, 1980. Return to text.
Symons, Ref. 88, p. 162. Return to text.
Fox, R., The Red Lamp of Incest, E. P. Dutton, New York, 1980. Return to text.
Eberhard, W.G., Sexual Selection and Animal Genitalia, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 67, 1985. Return to text.
Eberhard, Ref. 91, p. 69. Return to text.
Tavris, C., The Mismeasure of Women: Why Women Are Not the Better Sex, the Inferior Sex, or the Opposite Sex, Simon and Schuster, New York, p. 214, 1992. Return to text.
Mosedale, S.S., Corrupted—Victorian biologists consider ‘the women question,’ Journal of the History of Biology 9:1–55, 1978. Return to text.
Fee, Ref. 48, p. 419. Return to text.
Richards, Ref. 10, p. 887. Return to text.
Hubbard, et al., Ref. 79. Return to text.
Richards, Ref. 38, p. 60. Return to text.
Hubbard, et al., Ref. 79, p. 16. Return to text.
George, Ref. 8, p. 136. Return to text.
Richards, Ref. 6, p. 64. Return to text.
Hubbard, et al., Ref. 79. Return to text.
Hollingsworth, L.S., Variability as related to sex differences in achievement, American Journal of Sociology 19:510–530, 1914. Return to text.
Help keep these daily articles coming. Find out how to support AiG.