WasLifeCreated?

Contents

PAGE 4The Living Planet

PAGE 11Who Designed

It First?

PAGE 18Evolution—Myths

and Facts

PAGE 24Science and theGenesis Account

PAGE 29Does It Matter

What You Believe?

PAGE 30Bibliography

! 2010WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND

TRACT SOCIETY OFPENNSYLVANIA

All Rights Reserved

PublishersWATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT

SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.Brooklyn, New York, U.S.A.

2010 Printing

This publication is not for sale.It is provided as part of a world-

wide Bible educational work sup-ported by voluntary donations.

Unless otherwise indicated,Scripture quotations are from

the modern-language NewWorld Translation of the HolyScriptures—With References

Was Life Created?English (lc-E)

Made in the United Statesof America

The living planetLife on earth could never exist were it not for a series of very fortunate “coinci-

dences,” some of which were unknown or poorly understood until the 20th century.

Those coincidences include the following:

˛ Earth’s location in the Milky Way galaxy and the solar system, as well as the

planet’s orbit, tilt, rotational speed, and unusual moon

˛ A magnetic field and an atmosphere that serve as a dual shield

˛ Natural cycles that replenish and cleanse the planet’s air and water supply

As you consider each of these topics, ask yourself, ‘Are earth’s features a product

of blind chance or of purposeful design?’

4 WAS LIFE CREATED?

Earth’s perfect “address”When you write down your address,

what do you include? You might put inyour country, city, and street. By way ofcomparison, let’s call the Milky Way gal-axy earth’s “country,” the solar system—that is, the sun and its planets—earth’s“city,” and earth’s orbit within the so-lar system earth’s “street.” Thanks to ad-vances in astronomy and physics, scien-tists have gained deep insights into themerits of our special spot in the universe.

To begin with, our “city,” or solar sys-tem, is located in the ideal region of theMilky Way galaxy—not too close to thecenter and not too far from it. This “hab-itable zone,” as scientists call it, contains

just the right concentrations of the chem-ical elements needed to support life. Far-ther out, those elements are too scarce;farther in, the neighborhood is too dan-gerous because of the greater abundanceof potentially lethal radiation and otherfactors. “We live in prime real estate,”says Scientific American magazine.1

The ideal “street”: No less “prime” isearth’s “street,” or orbit within our so-lar system “city.” About 93 million milesfrom the sun, this orbit lies within a limit-ed zone that is habitable because life nei-ther freezes nor fries. Moreover, earth’spath is almost circular, keeping us rough-ly the same distance from the sun year-round.

The sun, meanwhile, is the perfect“powerhouse.” It is stable, it is the idealsize, and it emits just the right amountof energy. For good reason, it has beencalled “a very special star.”2

The perfect “neighbor”: If you had tochoose a “next-door neighbor” for theearth, you could not improve on themoon. Its diameter measures just over aquarter of that of the earth. Thus, when

Could the earth be located ina better position to host life?

&N

AS

A/JP

L/C

alte

ch

THE LIVING PLANET 5

compared with other moons in our solarsystem, our moon is unusually large inrelation to its host planet. Mere coinci-dence? It seems unlikely.

For one thing, the moon is the princi-pal cause of ocean tides, which play a vi-tal role in earth’s ecology. The moon alsocontributes to the planet’s stable spinaxis. Without its tailor-made moon, ourplanet would wobble like a spinning top,perhaps even tipping right over and turn-ing on its side, as it were! The resultingclimatic, tidal, and other changes wouldbe catastrophic.

Earth’s perfect tilt and spin: Earth’stilt of about 23.4 degrees causes the an-nual cycle of seasons, moderates tem-peratures, and allows for a wide rangeof climate zones. “Our planet’s tilt axisseems to be ‘just right,’ ” says the book

Rare Earth—Why Complex Life IsUncommon in the Universe.3

Also “just right” is thelength of day and night, aresult of earth’s spin. If thespeed of rotation were sub-stantially slower, the days

would be longer and the sideof the earth facing the sun

would bake while the other sidewould freeze. Conversely, if the earth

were to spin much faster, the days wouldbe shorter, perhaps just a few hours long,and earth’s rapid spin would cause relent-less gale-force winds and other harmfule!ects.

Earth’s protective shieldsSpace is a dangerous place where le-

thal radiation is common and meteor-oids are an ever-present danger. Yet,our blue planet seems to fly throughthis galactic “shooting gallery” with rel-ative impunity. Why? Because earth isprotected by amazing armor—a powerfulmagnetic field and a custom-made atmo-sphere.

Earth’s magnetic field: The center ofthe earth is a spinning ball of molten iron,which causes our planet to have a hugeand powerful magnetic field that stretch-es far into space. This shield protects usfrom the full intensity of cosmic radiationand from potentially deadly forces ema-nating from the sun. The latter includethe solar wind, which is a steady streamof energetic particles; solar flares, whichin minutes release as much energy as bil-lions of hydrogen bombs; and explosionsin the outer region, or corona, of thesun, which blast billions of tons of matterinto space. You can see visible remind-ers of the protection you receive from

Magn

eto

sph

ere

:N

AS

A/S

teele

Hill;

earth

tilt:B

ase

don

NA

SA

/Visib

leE

arth

imagery

6 WAS LIFE CREATED?

the earth’s magnetic field. Solar flaresand explosions in the sun’s corona trig-ger intense auroras, colorful displays oflight visible in the upper atmosphere nearearth’s magnetic poles.

Earth’s atmosphere: This blanket ofgases not only keeps us breathing butalso provides additional protection. Anouter layer of the atmosphere, the strato-sphere, contains a form of oxygen calledozone, which absorbs up to 99 percentof incoming ultraviolet (UV) radiation.Thus, the ozone layer helps to protectmany forms of life—including humansand the plankton we depend on to pro-duce much of our oxygen—from danger-ous radiation. The amount of stratospher-ic ozone is not fixed. Rather, it changes,growing as the intensity of UV radiationrises. So the ozone layer is a dynamic, ef-ficient shield.

The atmosphere also protects us froma daily barrage of debris from space—mil-lions of objects ranging in size from tinyparticles to boulders. By far the majorityof these burn up in the atmosphere, be-

coming bright flashes of light called me-teors. However, earth’s shields do notblock radiation that is essential to life,such as heat and visible light. The atmo-sphere even helps to distribute the heataround the globe, and at night the atmo-sphere acts as a blanket, slowing the es-cape of heat.

Earth’s atmosphere and magnetic fieldtruly are marvels of design that are stillnot fully understood. The same could besaid of the cycles that sustain life on thisplanet.

Is it only a coincidencethat our planet isprotected by two

dynamic shields?A

uro

ra:P

hoto

:Ja

nC

urtis

(http

://latitu

de6

4p

hoto

s.com

);m

ete

orite

:E

SA

,N

AS

A

The earth’s invisiblemagnetic shield

Aurora borealis

The atmosphereprotects us from

meteors

Natural cycles for lifeIf a city’s supply of fresh air and water were

cut and its sewers blocked, disease and deathwould soon follow. But consider: Our planet isnot like a restaurant, where new food and suppliesare shipped in from outside and garbage is cartedaway. The clean air and water we depend on arenot shipped in from outer space, nor is waste mat-ter rocketed out. So how does the earth remainhealthy and habitable? The answer: the natural cy-cles, such as water, carbon, oxygen, and nitrogencycles, explained here and shown simplified.

The water cycle: Water is essential to life.None of us can live without it for more thana few days. The water cycle distributes fresh,clean water around the planet. It involvesthree stages. (1) Solar power lifts water intothe atmosphere by evaporation. (2) Condensa-tion of this purified water produces clouds.(3) Clouds, in turn, form rain, hail, sleet, orsnow, which falls to the ground, ready to evapo-rate again, thus completing the cycle. How muchwater is recycled annually? According to esti-mates, enough to cover the earth’s surface uni-formly to a depth of more than two and a halffeet.4

The carbon and oxygen cycles: As you know,in order to live you need to breathe, to take inoxygen and give out carbon dioxide. But withcountless billions of humans and animals doingthe same thing, why does our atmosphere neverrun out of oxygen and become overloaded withcarbon dioxide? The answer lies in the oxygencycle. (1) In an amazing process called photo-synthesis, plants take in the carbon dioxide thatwe exhale, using it and the energy from sunlightto produce carbohydrates and oxygen. (2) Whenwe take in oxygen, we complete that cycle. Allthis production of vegetation and breathable airhappens cleanly, e!ciently, and quietly.

1

3

2

1Carbondioxide

2Oxygen

8 WAS LIFE CREATED?

Perfect recycling!Humans, with all their advanced tech-

nology, create countless tons of unrecy-clable toxic waste annually. Yet, the earthrecycles all its wastes perfectly, using in-genious chemical engineering.

How do you think the earth’s recyclingsystems arose? “If the Earth’s ecosys-tem had truly evolved by chance alone, itwouldn’t possibly have been able to reachsuch a perfect level of environmental har-mony,” says religion and science writerM. A. Corey.5 Do you agree with his con-clusion?

How would you reply?˛ Do you feel that the earth’s features

are the product of purposefuldesign? If so, which of the abovefacts do you find most convincing?

˛ How would you respond to the claimthat the earth is nothing special,just another setting where evolutioncould occur?

Sto

ckbyte

/Getty

Images

THE LIVING PLANET 9

The nitrogen cycle: Life on earth also depends on the production of such organicmolecules as proteins. (A) To produce those molecules, nitrogen is needed. Happily, thatgas makes up about 78 percent of our atmosphere. Lightning converts nitrogen intocompounds that plants can absorb. (B) Then plants incorporate those compounds intoorganic molecules. Animals that eat those plants thus also acquire nitrogen. (C) Finally,when plants and animals die, the nitrogen compounds in them are broken down bybacteria. That process of decay releases nitrogen back into the soil and atmosphere,completing the cycle.

Earth’s atmosphere is78 percent nitrogen

OrganicmoleculesA

BacteriaB

Nitrogen compounds

C

Bacteria

Earth: Just one hundred grams(3.5 ounces) of soil has been foundto host 10,000 species of bacteria,7

not to mention the total number ofmicrobes. Some species have beenfound almost two miles underground!8

Air: In addition to the birds, bats, andinsects that fly through the air, the at-mosphere is filled with pollen andother spores, as well as seeds and—in certain areas—thousands of di"er-ent kinds of microbes. The diversity ofmicrobial life in the air is “on par withthe diversity of microbes in the soil,”says Scientific American magazine.9

Water: The oceans remain largely amystery because in order to studythe watery deep, scientists often haveto use costly technology. Even coralreefs, which are relatively accessibleand are well-surveyed, may host mil-lions of yet unknown species.

Did this impressive variety of life ariseby chance? Many would agree withthe poet who wrote: “How many yourworks are, O Jehovah! All of them inwisdom you have made. The earth isfull of your productions.”!—Psalm104:24.

! In the Bible, God’s personal name isJehovah.—Psalm 83:18.

Teeming with lifeNo one knows how many speciesthere are on earth. Estimates varyfrom 2 million to 100 million.6 Howpervasive is life on our planet?

Subterraneanbacteria

Pollen

Anemone

Bacteria: Penn State University, laboratory of Jean Brenchley, and with kindpermission from Springer Science!Business Media: Extremophiles, Novelultramicrobacterial isolates from a deep Greenland ice core represent a pro-posed new species, Chryseobacterium greenlandense sp. nov., January 2010,Jennifer Loveland-Curtze; pollen: ! Fotosearch10 WAS LIFE CREATED?

11

Who designed itfirst? In recent years, scientists and engineers have,

in a very real sense, allowed plants and ani-

mals to instruct them. (Job 12:7, 8) They are

studying and mimicking the design features

of various creatures—a field known as bio-

mimetics—in an e"ort to create new products

and improve the performance of existing ones.

As you consider the following examples, ask

yourself, ‘Who really deserves the credit

for these designs?’

12 WAS LIFE CREATED?

Learning from the whale’sflippers

What can aircraft designers learn fromthe humpback whale? A great deal, itseems. An adult humpback weighs about30 tons—as much as a loaded truck—andhas a relatively sti! body with large wing-like flippers. This 40-foot-long animal isremarkably agile under water.

What particularly intrigued research-ers was how this sti!-bodied creaturecould turn in what seem to be impossi-bly tight circles. They discovered that thesecret is in the shape of the whale’s flip-pers. The leading edge of its flippers isnot smooth, like an aircraft wing, but ser-rated, with a row of protruding bumpscalled tubercles.

As the whale slices through the water,these tubercles increase lift and reducedrag. How? The journal Natural Historyexplains that the tubercles make the wa-ter accelerate over the flipper in an orga-nized, rotating flow, even when the whaleis rising at very steep angles.10

What practical applications does thisdiscovery promise? Aircraft wingsbased on the design would evi-dently need fewer wing flaps

or other mechanical devices to alter air-flow. Such wings would be safer and eas-ier to maintain. Biomechanics expertJohn Long believes that someday soon“we may well see every single jetlinerwith the bumps of humpback whale flip-pers.”11

Mimicking the seagull’s wingsOf course, aircraft wings already mim-

ic the shape of birds’ wings. However, en-gineers have recently taken this mimicryto new heights. “Researchers at the Uni-versity of Florida,” reports New Scientist,“have built a prototype remote-controlleddrone with a seagull’s ability to hover,dive and climb rapidly.”12

Seagulls perform their remarkableaerobatic maneuvers by flexing theirwings at the elbow and shoulder joints.Copying this flexible wing design, “the

24-inch prototype drone uses a smallmotor to control a series of metal rodsthat move the wings,” says the magazine.These cleverly engineered wings enablethe small aircraft to hover and dive be-tween tall buildings. Some military per-sonnel are keen to develop such a highlymaneuverable craft for use in searchingfor chemical or biological weapons in bigcities.

Copying the seagull’s legA seagull does not freeze, even while

standing on ice. How does this creatureconserve its body heat? Part of the secretis in a fascinating design feature found ina number of animals that dwell in cold re-gions. It is called the countercurrent heatexchanger.

What is a countercurrent heat ex-changer? To understand it, picture twowater pipes strapped closely together.Hot water flows in one pipe, and cold,in the other. If both the hot water andthe cold water flow down the pipes in thesame direction, about half of

the heat from the hot water will trans-fer to the cold. However, if the hot waterand the cold water flow in opposite di-rections, nearly all the heat will transferfrom the hot water to the cold.

When a seagull stands on ice, the heatexchangers in its legs warm the blood asit returns from the bird’s cold feet. Theheat exchangers conserve heat in thebird’s body and prevent heat loss from itsfeet. Arthur P. Fraas, a mechanical andaeronautical engineer, described this de-sign as “one of the world’s most e!ectiveregenerative heat exchangers.”13 This de-sign is so ingenious that human engineershave copied it.

Pla

ne:K

risten

Bartle

tt/Un

iversity

of

Flo

rida

!Foto

search

Heat transfers,remains in thebody

Cold staysin the feet

14 WAS LIFE CREATED?

Who deserves the credit?Meanwhile, the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration is developinga multilegged robot that walks like a scor-pion, and engineers in Finland have al-ready developed a six-legged tractor thatcan climb over obstacles the way a giantinsect would. Other researchers have de-signed fabric with small flaps that imi-tate the way pinecones open and close.

Such fabric adjusts to the body temper-ature of the wearer. A car manufactureris developing a vehicle that imitates thesurprisingly low-drag design of the box-fish. And other researchers are probingthe shock-absorbing properties of aba-lone shells, with the intention of makinglighter, stronger body armor.

So many good ideas have come fromnature that researchers have establisheda database that already catalogs thou-

sands of di!erent biological systems.Scientists can search this database to find“natural solutions to their design prob-lems,” says The Economist. The naturalsystems held in this database are knownas biological patents. Normally, a pat-ent holder is a person or a companythat legally registers a new idea or ma-chine. Discussing this biological patentdatabase, The Economist says: “By callingbiomimetic tricks ‘biological patents’, theresearchers are just emphasising that na-ture is, in e!ect, the patent holder.”14

How did nature come up with all thesebrilliant ideas? Many researchers wouldattribute the seemingly ingenious designsevident in nature to millions of years ofevolutionary trial and error. Other re-searchers, though, arrive at a di!erentconclusion. Microbiologist Michael J.Behe wrote in The New York Times ofFebruary 7, 2005: “The strong appear-ance of design [in nature] allows a dis-armingly simple argument: if it looks,walks and quacks like a duck, then, ab-sent compelling evidence to the con-

Who is nature’s patent holder?

A concept car imitatesthe surprisingly low-dragand stable design of theboxfish

Sonar in dolphins is superiorto the human imitation

Boxfi

shan

dca

r:M

erce

des-B

en

zU

SA

WHO DESIGNED IT FIRST? 15

trary, we have warrant to conclude it’s aduck.” His opinion? “Design should notbe overlooked simply because it’s so ob-vious.”15

Surely, the engineer who designs asafer, more e"cient aircraft wing woulddeserve to receive credit for his or her de-sign. Likewise, the inventor who devisesa more comfortable clothing material ora more e"cient motor vehicle deservescredit for his or her design. In fact, a man-ufacturer who copies someone else’s de-sign but fails to acknowledge or credit thedesigner may be viewed as a criminal.

Now consider these facts: Highlytrained researchers crudely mimic sys-tems in nature to solve di"cult engineer-ing problems. Yet, some would attributethe genius of devising the original idea tounintelligent evolution. Does that soundreasonable to you? If the copy requiresan intelligent designer, what about theoriginal? Really, who deserves more cred-it, the master engineer or the apprenticewho imitates his designs?

A logical conclusionAfter reviewing evidence of design

in nature, many people echo the senti-ments of the Bible writer Paul, who said:“[God’s] invisible qualities are clearlyseen from the world’s creation onward,because they are perceived by the thingsmade, even his eternal power and God-ship.”—Romans 1:19, 20.

How would you reply?˛ Does it seem logical

to you to believethat the brilliantengineering evidentin nature came aboutby accident?

˛ How would youanswer the claimthat life only appearsto be designed?

Geck

ofo

ot:!

Foto

search

;h

um

min

gb

ird:Lau

rieE

xcell/F

ogsto

ck/a

ge

foto

stock

Scientists are researching theshock-absorbing propertiesof abalone shells

The gecko can cling to thesmoothest of surfaces byusing molecular forces

16 WAS LIFE CREATED?

Was itdesigned?If the copy requires a designer, what about the original?

Fibers˛ Man-made product: Kevlar is a tough

man-made fiber used in such itemsas bulletproof vests. To manufactureKevlar, high temperatures andhazardous solvents are required.

˛ Natural product: Orb-weaving spidersproduce seven types of silk. Thesturdiest, known as dragline silk, islighter than cotton yet, ounce forounce, is stronger than steel andtougher than Kevlar. If enlarged to thesize of a football field, a web ofdragline silk 0.4 inch thick with strands1.6 inches apart could stop a jumbo jetin flight! Spiders produce dragline silkat room temperature, using water as asolvent.

Microscopic view of spidersilk being secreted

Copyrig

ht

Den

nis

Ku

nkelM

icrosco

py,

Inc.

WHO DESIGNED IT FIRST? 17

Navigation˛ Man-made product: Some commercial

airliners have computerized autopilot systems thatcan not only guide a plane from one country toanother but also land the plane. The computer usedin one experimental autopilot system is about thesize of a credit card.

˛ Natural product: Using a brain the size of the tip ofa ballpoint pen, the monarch butterfly migrates up to1,800 miles from Canada to a small patch of forestin Mexico. This butterfly relies on the sun to help itnavigate, and it has the ability to compensate for themovement of the sun across the sky.

Lenses˛ Man-made product: Engineers

have developed an artificial compoundeye that fits 8,500 lenses into a spacethe size of a pinhead. Such lenses couldbe used in high-speed motion detectors andultrathin multidirectional cameras.

˛ Natural product: Each eye of a dragonfly is madeup of some 30,000 lenses. These lenses produceimages that combine to create a wide mosaic view.The compound eyes of the dragonfly are superb atdetecting movement.

Before answering that question, weneed to clear up something. Many scien-tists have noted that over time, the de-scendants of living things may changeslightly. For example, humans can selec-tively breed dogs so that eventually thedescendants have shorter legs or longer

hair than their forebears.! Some scien-tists attach to such slight changes theterm “microevolution.”

However, evolutionists teach thatsmall changes accumulated slowly overbillions of years and produced the bigchanges needed to make fish into am-phibians and apelike creatures into men.These proposed big changes are definedas “macroevolution.”

Charles Darwin, for example, taughtthat the small changes we can observe

! The changes dog breeders can produce often re-sult from losses in gene function. For example, thedachshund’s small size is caused by a failure of nor-mal development of cartilage, resulting in dwarfism.

Evolutionmyths and facts

“Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” asserts Professor Richard

Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist.16 Of course, experiments and direct

observations prove that the sun is hot. But do experiments and direct observations

provide the teaching of evolution with the same undisputed support?

Charles Darwinand his bookOrigin of Species

Darw

in:Fro

mth

eb

ook

Orig

inof

Sp

ecie

s,19

02

;b

ook:A

beB

ooks.co

m

EVOLUTION—MYTHS AND FACTS 19

implied that much bigger changes—whichno one has observed—are also possible.17

He felt that over vast periods of time,some original, so-called simple life-formsslowly evolved—by means of “extremelyslight modifications”—into the millions ofdi!erent forms of life on earth.18

To many, this claim sounds reason-able. They wonder, ‘If small changescan occur within a species, why shouldnot evolution produce big changes overlong periods of time?’! In reality, though,the teaching of evolution rests on threemyths. Consider the following.

Myth 1. Mutations provide the rawmaterials needed to create new spe-cies. The teaching of macroevolu-tion is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic codeof plants and animals—can produce notonly new species but also entirely newfamilies of plants and animals.19

The facts. Many characteristics of aplant or an animal are determined bythe instructions contained in its geneticcode, the blueprints that are wrapped upin the nucleus of each cell." Research-ers have discovered that mutations canproduce alterations in the descendantsof plants and animals. But do mutationsreally produce entirely new species?What has a century of study in the fieldof genetic research revealed?

In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusi-astically embraced a new idea. They al-ready thought that natural selection—theprocess in which the organism best suit-

! While the word “species” is used frequently inthis section, it should be noted that this term is notfound in the Bible book of Genesis. There we find theterm “kind,” which is much broader in meaning. Of-ten, what scientists choose to call the evolution of anew species is simply a matter of variation within a“kind,” as the word is used in the Genesis account." Research shows that the cell’s cytoplasm, its

membranes, and other structures also play a role inshaping an organism.

ed to its environment is most likely to sur-vive and breed—could produce new spe-cies of plants from random mutations.Therefore, they now assumed that artifi-cial, or human-guided, selection of mu-tations should be able to do the samething but more e"ciently. “Euphoriaspread among biologists in general andgeneticists and breeders in particular,”said Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, a scien-tist from the Max Planck Institute forPlant Breeding Research in Germany.!Why the euphoria? Lonnig, who hasspent some 30 years studying mutationgenetics in plants, said: “These research-ers thought that the time had come torevolutionize the traditional method

! Lonnig believes that life was created. His com-ments in this publication are his own and do not rep-resent the opinion of the Max Planck Institute forPlant Breeding Research.

Normal

Mutant fruit flies, thoughmalformed, are still fruit flies

Mutations can introduce changesin plants—such as this mutant withlarge flowers—but only within limits

Normal

20 WAS LIFE CREATED?

of breeding plants and animals. Theythought that by inducing and selectingfavorable mutations, they could producenew and better plants and animals.”20 Infact, some hoped to produce entirely newspecies.

Scientists in the United States, Asia,and Europe launched well-funded re-search programs using methods thatpromised to speed up evolution. Aftermore than 40 years of intensive research,what were the results? “In spite of anenormous financial expenditure,” says re-searcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the at-tempt to cultivate increasingly produc-tive varieties by irradiation [to causemutations], widely proved to be a fail-ure.”21 And Lonnig said: “By the 1980’s,the hopes and euphoria among scientistshad ended in worldwide failure. Mutationbreeding as a separate branch of researchwas abandoned in Western countries. Al-most all the mutants . . . died or wereweaker than wild varieties.”!

Even so, the data now gathered fromsome 100 years of mutation research ingeneral and 70 years of mutation breed-ing in particular enable scientists to drawconclusions regarding the ability of muta-tions to produce new species. After ex-amining the evidence, Lonnig concluded:“Mutations cannot transform an originalspecies [of plant or animal] into an en-tirely new one. This conclusion agreeswith all the experiences and results ofmutation research of the 20th centurytaken together as well as with the laws ofprobability.”

! Mutation experiments repeatedly found that thenumber of new mutants steadily declined, while thesame type of mutants regularly appeared. In addition,less than 1 percent of plant mutations were chosen forfurther research, and less than 1 percent of this groupwere found suitable for commercial use. However, notone entirely new species was ever created. The resultsof mutation breeding in animals were even worse thanin plants, and the method was abandoned entirely.

So, can mutations cause one speciesto evolve into a completely new kind ofcreature? The evidence answers no! Lon-nig’s research has led him to the conclu-sion that “properly defined species havereal boundaries that cannot be abol-ished or transgressed by accidental muta-tions.”22

Consider the implications of the abovefacts. If highly trained scientists are un-able to produce new species by artificial-ly inducing and selecting favorable mu-tations, is it likely that an unintelligentprocess would do a better job? If researchshows that mutations cannot transforman original species into an entirely newone, then how, exactly, was macroevolu-tion supposed to have taken place?

Myth 2. Natural selection led to thecreation of new species. Darwin be-lieved that what he called natural selec-tion would favor those life-forms bestsuited to the environment, whereas lesssuitable life-forms would eventually dieo!. Modern evolutionists teach that asspecies spread and became isolated, nat-ural selection chose the ones with genemutations that made them capable of sur-viving in their new environment. As a re-sult, evolutionists speculate, these isolat-ed groups eventually developed intototally new species.

The facts. As previously noted, the ev-idence from research strongly indicatesthat mutations cannot produce entirelynew kinds of plants or animals. Neverthe-less, what proof do evolutionists provideto support the claim that natural selec-tion chooses beneficial mutations to pro-duce new species? A brochure publishedin 1999 by the National Academy ofSciences (NAS) in the United States re-fers to “the 13 species of finches studiedby Darwin on the Galapagos Islands,now known as Darwin’s finches.”23

EVOLUTION—MYTHS AND FACTS 21

In the 1970’s, a research group ledby Peter R. and B. Rosemary Grant ofPrinceton University began studyingthese finches and discovered that aftera year of drought on the islands, finch-es that had slightly bigger beakssurvived more readily than those withsmaller beaks. Since observing the sizeand shape of the beaks is one of the pri-mary ways of determining the 13 spe-cies of finches, these findings were as-sumed to be significant. “The Grantshave estimated,” continues the NAS bro-chure, “that if droughts occur about onceevery 10 years on the islands, a new spe-cies of finch might arise in only about200 years.”24

However, the NAS brochure neglectsto mention that in the years following thedrought, finches with smaller beaks againdominated the population. The research-ers found that as the climatic conditionson the island changed, finches with lon-ger beaks were dominant one year, butlater those with smaller beaks were dom-inant. They also noticed that some of the

di!erent “species” of finches were inter-breeding and producing o!spring thatsurvived better than the parents. Theyconcluded that if the interbreeding con-tinued, it could result in the fusion of two“species” into just one.25

So, does natural selection really createentirely new species? Decades ago, evo-lutionary biologist George ChristopherWilliams began questioning whether nat-ural selection had such power.26 In 1999,evolutionary theorist Je!rey H. Schwartzwrote that natural selection may be help-ing species adapt to the changing de-mands of existence, but it is not creatinganything new.27

Indeed, Darwin’s finches are not be-coming “anything new.” They are stillfinches. And the fact that they are inter-breeding casts doubt on the methodssome evolutionists use to define a spe-cies. In addition, information about thesebirds exposes the fact that even presti-gious scientific academies are not abovereporting evidence in a biased manner.

At best, Darwin’s finches showthat a species can adapt tochanging climates

Beak

dra

win

gs:

From

the

book

Jou

rna

lof

Rese

arch

es,

by

Ch

arle

sD

arw

in(1

87

3),

image

cou

rtesy

Bio

dive

rsityH

erita

ge

Lib

rary

22 WAS LIFE CREATED?

Myth 3. The fossil record documentsmacroevolutionary changes. The previ-ously mentioned NAS brochure leavesthe reader with the impression that thefossils found by scientists more than ade-quately document macroevolution. It de-clares: “So many intermediate formshave been discovered between fish andamphibians, between amphibians andreptiles, between reptiles and mammals,and along the primate lines of descentthat it often is di"cult to identify cate-gorically when the transition occurs fromone to another particular species.”28

The facts. The confident statementmade by the NAS brochure is quite sur-prising. Why? Niles Eldredge, a staunchevolutionist, states that the fossil record

shows, not that there is a gradual accu-mulation of change, but that for long pe-riods of time, “little or no evolutionarychange accumulates in most species.”!29

To date, scientists worldwide haveunearthed and cataloged some 200 mil-lion large fossils and billions of small fos-sils. Many researchers agree that this vastand detailed record shows that all the ma-jor groups of animals appeared suddenlyand remained virtually unchanged, withmany species disappearing as suddenlyas they arrived.

Belief in evolution—an act of “faith”

Why do many prominent evolutionists

! Even the few examples from the fossil record thatresearchers point to as proof of evolution are open todebate. See pages 22 to 29 of the brochure, The Originof Life—Five Questions Worth Asking, published by Je-hovah’s Witnesses.

insist that macroevolution is a fact? Rich-ard Lewontin, an influential evolution-ist, candidly wrote that many scientistsare willing to accept unproven scien-tific claims because they “have a priorcommitment, a commitment to materi-alism.”! Many scientists refuse even toconsider the possibility of an intelligentDesigner because, as Lewontin writes,“we cannot allow a Divine Foot in thedoor.”30

In this regard, sociologist RodneyStark is quoted in Scientific American assaying: “There’s been 200 years of mar-keting that if you want to be a scientif-ic person you’ve got to keep yourmind free of the fetters of religion.” Hefurther notes that in research universities,“the religious people keep their mouthsshut.”31

If you are to accept the teaching ofmacroevolution as true, you must believethat agnostic or atheistic scientists willnot let their personal beliefs influencetheir interpretations of scientific findings.You must believe that mutations and nat-ural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite a century of research thatshows that mutations have not trans-formed even one properly defined spe-cies into something entirely new. Youmust believe that all creatures gradual-ly evolved from a common ancestor, de-spite a fossil record that strongly indi-cates that the major kinds of plants andanimals appeared abruptly and did notevolve into other kinds, even over aeonsof time. Does that type of belief sound asthough it is based on facts or on myths?Really, belief in evolution is an act of“faith.”

! “Materialism,” in this sense, refers to a theorythat everything in the universe, including all life, cameinto existence without any supernatural interventionin the process.

According to the fossil record, all the majorgroups of animals appeared suddenly andremained virtually unchanged

!Ju

an

Carlo

sM

u˜noz/a

ge

foto

stock

,an

dco

urte

syof

Roya

lTyrre

llM

use

um

of

Pala

eon

tolo

gy

How would you reply?˛ How would you respond to the

claim that proof of so-calledmicroevolution is evidencethat macroevolution musthave taken place?

˛ Why is it significant thatthe fossil record showsthat the majority of specieschanged very little over vastperiods of time?

24 WAS LIFE CREATED?

When was “the beginning”?The Genesis account opens with the

simple, powerful statement: “In the be-ginning God created the heavens andthe earth.” (Genesis 1:1) A number ofBible scholars agree that this statementdescribes an action separate from thecreative days recounted from verse 3 on-ward. The implication is profound. Ac-cording to the Bible’s opening words, theuniverse, including our planet, Earth, wasin existence for an indefinite time beforethe creative days began.

Geologists estimate that the earthis 4 billion years old, and astronomerscalculate that the universe may be asmuch as 15 billion years old. Do thesefindings—or their potential future refine-ments—contradict Genesis 1:1? No. The

Bible does not specify the actual age of“the heavens and the earth.” Science isnot at odds with the Biblical text.

How long werethe creative days?

What about the length of the creativedays? Were they literally 24 hours long?Some claim that because Moses—thewriter of Genesis—later referred to theday that followed the six creative daysas a model for the weekly Sabbath, eachof the creative days must be literally 24hours long. (Exodus 20:11) Does thewording of Genesis support this conclu-sion?

No, it does not. The fact is that theHebrew word translated “day” can meanvarious lengths of time, not just a 24-hour

Scienceand the

Genesis accountMany people claim that science disproves the Bible’s account of creation.

However, the real contradiction is, not between science and the Bible, but

between science and the opinions of Christian Fundamentalists. Some of

these groups falsely assert that according to the Bible, all physical creation

was produced in six 24-hour days approximately 10,000 years ago.

The Bible, however, does not support such a conclusion. If it did, then many

scientific discoveries over the past one hundred years would indeed discredit

the Bible. A careful study of the Bible text reveals no conflict with estab-

lished scientific facts. For that reason, Jehovah’s Witnesses disagree with

Christian Fundamentalists and many creationists. The following shows what

the Bible really teaches.

Neb

ula

:IA

C/R

GO

/David

Malin

Images

Genesis does not teachthat the earth and theuniverse were created insix 24-hour days just a fewthousand years ago

26 WAS LIFE CREATED?

period. For example, when summarizingGod’s creative work, Moses refers to allsix creative days as one day. (Genesis2:4) In addition, on the first creative day,“God began calling the light Day, but thedarkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5)Here, only a portion of a 24-hour periodis defined by the term “day.” Certainly,there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrari-ly stating that each creative day was 24hours long.

How long, then, were the creativedays? The Bible does not say; however,the wording of Genesis chapters 1 and 2indicates that considerable lengths oftime were involved.

Six creative periodsMoses wrote his account in Hebrew,

and he wrote it from the perspective ofa person standing on the surface of theearth. These two facts combined with theknowledge that the universe existed be-fore the beginning of the creative peri-ods, or days, help to defuse much of thecontroversy surrounding the creation ac-count. How so?

A careful consideration of the Genesisaccount reveals that events starting dur-ing one “day” continued into one or moreof the following “days.” For example, be-fore the first creative “day” started, lightfrom the already existing sun was some-how prevented from reaching the earth’ssurface, possibly by thick clouds. (Job38:9) During the first “day,” this barrierbegan to clear, allowing di!used light topenetrate the atmosphere.!

On the second “day,” the atmosphereevidently continued to clear, creating aspace between the thick clouds aboveand the ocean below. On the fourth“day,” the atmosphere gradually clearedto such an extent that the sun and themoon were made to appear “in the ex-panse of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:14-16)In other words, from the perspective of aperson on earth, the sun and moon beganto be discernible. These events happenedgradually.

! In the description of what happened on the first“day,” the Hebrew word used for light is ’ohr, light ina general sense, but concerning the fourth “day,” theword used is ma·’ohr!, which refers to the source oflight.

Events starting during one “day” continued intoone or more of the following “days”

The Genesis account also relates thatas the atmosphere continued to clear,flying creatures—including insects andmembrane-winged creatures—started toappear on the fifth “day.”

The Bible’s narrative allows for thepossibility that some major events dur-ing each day, or creative period, occurredgradually rather than instantly, perhapssome of them even lasting into the follow-ing creative days.!

According to their kindsDoes this progressive appearance of

plants and animals imply that God usedevolution to produce the vast diversityof living things? No. The record clear-ly states that God created all the basic“kinds” of plant and animal life. (Gene-sis 1:11, 12, 20-25) Were these origi-nal “kinds” of plants and animals pro-grammed with the ability to adapt tochanging environmental conditions?What defines the boundary of a “kind”?

! For example, during the sixth creative day, Goddecreed that humans “become many and fill theearth.” (Genesis 1:28, 31) Yet, this event did not evenbegin to occur until the following “day.”—Genesis 2:2.

28 WAS LIFE CREATED?

The Bible does not say. How-ever, it does state that livingcreatures “swarmed forth ac-cording to their kinds.” (Gen-esis 1:21) This statement im-

plies that there is a limit to the amount ofvariation that can occur within a “kind.”Both the fossil record and modern re-search support the idea that the funda-mental categories of plants and animalshave changed little over vast periods oftime.

Contrary to the claims of some reli-gious fundamentalists, Genesis does notteach that the universe, including the

earth and all living things on it, was creat-ed in a short period of time in the rela-tively recent past. Rather, aspects of thedescription in Genesis of the creation ofthe universe and the appearance of lifeon earth harmonize with recent scientificdiscoveries.

Because of their philosophical beliefs,many scientists reject the Bible’s decla-ration that God created all things. Inter-estingly, however, in the ancient Biblebook of Genesis, Moses wrote that theuniverse had a beginning and that lifeappeared in stages, progressively, overperiods of time. How could Moses gainaccess to such scientifically accurate in-formation some 3,500 years ago? Thereis one logical explanation. The One withthe power and wisdom to create theheavens and the earth could certain-ly give Moses such advanced knowledge.This gives weight to the Bible’s claimthat it is “inspired of God.”!—2 Timothy3:16.

You may wonder, though, does it real-ly matter whether you believe the Bi-ble’s account of creation? Consider somecompelling reasons why the answer doesmatter.

! For more information on this subject, see the bro-chure A Book for All People, published by Jehovah’sWitnesses.

How would you reply?˛ What are some common misconceptions

about the Bible’s account of creation?

˛ Why is it remarkable that the Bible andscience agree on many points?

Modern researchconfirms that all livingthings reproduce“according to theirkinds”

Pen

gu

ins:

By

cou

rtesy

of

Joh

nR

.P

ein

iger

Consider the significance of thosewords. If ultimate meaning in life werenonexistent, then you would have no pur-pose in living other than to try to do somemeasure of good and perhaps pass onyour genetic traits to the next generation.At death, you would cease to exist for-ever. Your brain, with its ability to think,reason, and meditate on the meaning oflife, would simply be an accident of na-ture.

That is not all. Many who believe inevolution assert that God does not existor that he will not intervene in human af-fairs. In either case, our future would restin the hands of political, academic, andreligious leaders. Judging from the pastrecord of such men, the chaos, conflict,and corruption that blight human soci-ety would continue. If, indeed, evolutionwere true, there would seem to be amplereason to live by the fatalistic motto: “Letus eat and drink, for tomorrow we are todie.”—1 Corinthians 15:32.

By contrast, the Bible teaches: “With[God] is the source of life.” (Psalm 36:9)Those words have profound implica-tions.

If what the Bible says is true, life doeshave meaning. Our Creator has a lovingpurpose that extends to all who choose tolive in accord with his will. (Ecclesiastes12:13) That purpose includes the prom-ise of life in a world free of chaos, con-flict, and corruption—and even free ofdeath.—Psalm 37:10, 11; Isaiah 25:6-8.

With good reason, millions of peoplearound the world believe that learningabout God and obeying him give mean-ing to life as nothing else can! (John17:3) Such a belief is not based on merewishful thinking. The evidence is clear—life was created.

Does it matterwhat you believe?

Do you think that life has a purpose? Evolutionist Wil-

liam B. Provine says: “What we have learned about the

evolutionary process has enormous implications for us,

a"ecting our sense of meaning in life.” His conclusion?

“I can see no cosmic or ultimate meaning in human life.”32

How would you reply?˛ What are you inclined to

believe—that we evolved orthat we were created? Whydo you so answer?

˛ What are some goodreasons for examining thebasis for your beliefs?

&Fau

nia

,M

ad

rid

29

30 WAS LIFE CREATED?

The Living Planet

1. Scientific American, Special Issue 2008 enti-tled “Majestic Universe,” p. 11.

2. Perfect Planet, Clever Species—How UniqueAre We? by William C. Burger, 2003, pp. 24, 34.

3. Rare Earth—Why Complex Life Is Uncommonin the Universe, by Peter D. Ward and DonaldBrownlee, 2000, p. 224.

4. The Sacred Balance—Rediscovering Our Placein Nature, by David Suzuki, 2007, p. 102.

5. God and the New Cosmology—The AnthropicDesign Argument, by M. A. Corey, 1993,pp. 144-145.

Box: Teeming With Life

6. Wildlife in a Changing World—AnAnalysis of the 2008 IUCN RedList of Threatened Species, editedby Jean-Christophe Vi

´e, Craig

Hilton-Taylor, and Simon N. Stuart,2009, p. 6.

7. Journal of Industrial Micro-biology, “Total Bacterial Diversi-ty in Soil and Sediment Commu-nities—A Review,” by V. Torsvik,R. Sørheim, and J. Goksøyr,Volume 17, 1996, pp. 170-

178.

8. Science, “Environmental Ge-nomics Reveals a Single-SpeciesEcosystem Deep Within Earth,”by Dylan Chivian, et al, Vol-

ume 322, October 10, 2008,pp. 275-278.

9. Scientific American, “Microbe Census RevealsAir Crawling With Bacteria,” by David Biello,http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id˙microbe-census-reveals-ai.

Who Designed It First?

10. Natural History, “As the Whale Turns,” byAdam Summers, June 2004, pp. 24-25.

11. Science, Random Samples, “FlipperedFlight,” May 21, 2004, p. 1106.

12. New Scientist, Technology, “Is It a Bird, Is Ita Plane . . . ,” September 3, 2005, p. 21.

13. Heat Exchanger Design, Second Edition,by Arthur P. Fraas, 1989, p. 2.

14. The Economist Technology Quarterly, Report,“Technology That Imitates Nature,” June 11,2005, pp. 18-22.

15. The New York Times, “Design for Living,”by Michael J. Behe, February 7, 2005, p. A21.

Evolution—Myths and Facts

16. Natural History, “Darwin & Evolution—TheIllusion of Design,” by Richard Dawkins, Novem-ber 2005, p. 37.

17. Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, FirstEdition, 1859, Sixth Edition, 1872, pp. 285-286.

18. Charles Darwin—The Origin of Species,Introduction by Sir Julian Huxley, 1958 for Intro-duction, First Signet Classic Printing, Septem-ber 2003, p. 458.

19. Nobel Lectures, Physiology or Medicine1942-1962, 1999, “The Production of Muta-tions,” by H. J. Muller, 1946, p. 162.

20. Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and theLaw of Recurrent Variation, by Wolf-EkkehardL

¨onnig, “Expectations in Mutation Breeding,”

2005, p. 48, and interview with Wolf-EkkehardL

¨onnig.

21. Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Lawof Recurrent Variation, pp. 48-51.

22. Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Lawof Recurrent Variation, pp. 49, 50, 52, 54, 59,64, and interview with Wolf-Ekkehard L

¨onnig.

23. Science and Creationism—A View From theNational Academy of Sciences, “Evidence Sup-porting Biological Evolution,” 1999, p. 10.

24. Science and Creationism—A View From theNational Academy of Sciences, “Evidence Sup-porting Biological Evolution,” p. 11.

25. Scientific American, “Natural Selection andDarwin’s Finches,” by Peter R. Grant, Octo-ber 1991, p. 87;

Nature, “Oscillating Selection on Darwin’sFinches,” by H. Lisle Gibbs and Peter R. Grant,June 11, 1987, p. 511;

Science, “Hybridization of Bird Species,” by PeterR. Grant and B. Rosemary Grant, April 10, 1992,pp. 193-197.

26. Adaption and Natural Selection, by GeorgeC. Williams, 1966, p. 54.

27. Sudden Origins—Fossils, Genes, and theEmergence of Species, by Je"rey H. Schwartz,1999, pp. 317-320.

Bibliography

!D

avid

Haw

ks

28. Science and Creationism—A View Fromthe National Academy of Sciences, SecondEdition, “Evidence Supporting Biological Evolu-tion,” p. 14.

29. The Triumph of Evolution and the Failureof Creationism, by Niles Eldredge, 2000,pp. 49, 85.

30. The New York Review of Books, “Billionsand Billions of Demons,” by Richard C. Lewon-tin, January 9, 1997, pp. 28-32.

31. Scientific American, “Scientists and Reli-gion in America,” by Edward J. Larson and Lar-ry Witham, September 1999, p. 91.

Does It Matter What You Believe?

32. Science, Technology, and Social Progress,edited by Steven L. Goldman, “Evolution andthe Foundation of Ethics,” by William B. Pro-vine, 1989, pp. 253, 266.

NA

SA

,E

SA

,an

dth

eH

ub

ble

Herita

ge

(STS

cl/AU

RA

)-E

SA

/Hu

bb

leC

olla

bora

tion

What other book . . .˛ contains timeless principles for all people?

˛ has had such a profound impact on law?

˛ has inspired some to risk death in order to translateand copy it?

The 32-page brochure A Book for All People considersthese and many additional reasons for reading the Bible.

You can also find answers to the following questions:˛ Why do we su"er?

˛ How can we make our family life happier?

˛ What happens to us when we die?

The 224-page book What Does the Bible Really Teach?answers those and many other questions.

A BOOKFOR ALLPEOPLE

WHAT DOESTHE BIBLE

Really TEACH?

Would you welcome more information?You may contact Jehovah’s Witnesses at www.jw.org.

Was life created, or are you purely the product of random,

undirected events? Few questions create more controversy.

Yet, the answer is vitally important. This brochure considers

such questions as these:

˛ Was our planet designed for life?

˛ What can we learn from the designs evident in nature?

˛ Is the teaching of evolution based solidly on fact?

˛ Has science disproved the Bible’s account of creation?

˛ Why does it matter what you believe?

www.jw.org lc-E