In my time as an apologist, I've come more and more to realize
just how much the presuppositions of people will influence their
interpretation of facts and truth-claims. All of us carry biases and
it is important that we recognize and are sensitive to our own
biases as well as those of the person with whom we're discussing
things of God.
I was reminded of this just recently. When I used to commute to
Los Angeles, I would pass a recycling facility. At one corner
of the facility's yard is a large mound of debris that was compiled
many years ago. The rubble is weathered and mature weeds grow from
the artificial hillside. None of this is particularly worthy of
note, except that there is a chain link fence surrounding the pile
with both barbed wire and razor wire protecting its cache from any
trespassers.
I thought it kind of interesting that a trash heap would be
fenced off and protected to such a degree. Letting my mind wander, I
thought "What would an archaeologist make of this discovery in
a thousand years? He might assume that the contents of that pile
were very valuable at one time, seeing as it's so well
protected." Of course, I realized that the fence and wire were
there to protect wayward explorers from injuring themselves and
possibly suing the facility. But if someone didn't have that
cultural understanding of our society, they could look at the same
evidence I saw and come to a drastically different conclusion.
I further imagined that if this scenario came about the contents
of the rubble pile would be cataloged and examined. Academic papers
would be written, debates over the importance of this stone versus
that one would surface and countless hours would be devoted to
rebuilding whatever was supposed to have been originally housed at
the site.
A Big Mistake Identifying a Little Animal
Now, this may sound a bit extreme; surely the science of our day
is too sophisticated to make such an error! But the skirmish over a
little mouse in Wyoming, as reported by the Seattle
Post-Intelligencer underscores my point.
(1) In
1954, Professor Philip Krutzsch identified a new subspecies of
Meadow Jumping Mouse from examining the skulls and skins of several
samples. The new species was named the Preble's mouse. In 1998, this
study was offered as evidence to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to help list the Preble's mouse as an endangered species, which the
agency did.
Now, according to the Post-Intelligencer, "after six years
of regulations and restrictions that have cost builders, local
governments and landowners an estimated $100 million, new research
suggests that the 'threatened' Preble's mouse in fact never
existed." The newspaper reports that recent mitochondrial
genetics studies, performed by a team from the Denver Museum of
Nature and Science show that the mouse is identical to the Bar lodge
mouse, a species common enough not to need protection at all.
Now the critic might say that this proves nothing since modern
science caught its own mistake. However, I find it interesting that
the only way we could have caught such an error is because we have
existing specimens today. We're able to do such things as DNA
testing. Remember, Krutzsch's original findings were based on
skeletal and skin samples and they were considered acceptable at
that time as the article points out. If no live samples of the
so-called Preble's mouse were around to be tested, I wonder if the
error would have been caught at all.
Evolution's Identity Problems
In fact, that's the whole reason for this discussion. Evolution
as a field of study is based pretty much on the evidence of skeletal
remains. We have some fossilized skin patterns, footprints, and
such. But most of all the advances in evolutionary theory are from
fossilized bones. If a modern day professor got it wrong about a
mouse that he was able to observe, than how much more likely is it
that paleontologists make mistakes interpreting fossils. In fact,
author Luther Sunderland asked David M. Raup, a noted evolutionist
and Curator of Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History at the
University of Chicago, about the practice of naming the same
creature by different species names when it's found in different
period rocks. "He acknowledged that it used to be a very common
practice and still occurred… it was done purposely because of an a
priori theoretical mode, but he thought most of these had 'been
cleaned out now'."
(2)
So here we have evidence that the bias of the scientists come
into direct play when they seek to identify a new species. In fact,
Raup noted that many times this was done on purpose to try and make
the evidence conform to the theory instead of the other way around.
He later tells Sunderland that "approximately 70 percent of
species described are found to be the same as existing species, so
70 percent of the new species named should not have been, either
through ignorance or because of the rules used by taxonomists."
(3)
As the debate over evolution continues to heat up, Christians
have recurrently been accused of ignoring the evidence because of
their beliefs. Is this charge true? Perhaps in some cases. However,
the history of paleontology shows just as large a bias on the part
of the evolutionists. So, the next time you are discussing the issue
with a friend or colleague, make sure you're sensitive to the
assumptions that lie behind the assertions. Their facts may be as
tenuous as a rat in a trap.
References
