The Missing Link Problem

On the subject of “missing links,” Ray confirms a key features of the fossil record upon which I base the “amalgamation” theory: there are lots of animals in the fossil record that seem to have mixed-class characteristics, but, for various reasons, they are not missing links; they are not in the ancestral line between one type of animal and another. She argues that although these creatures were not directly ancestral, they are part of a “bush” or cluster that shows transitional characteristics. They were “cousins.”

One of her fossil examples is Tiktaalik, a lobed-fin fish found in strata notionally around 375 million years old. Although there are several lobe-finned fishes, Ray is a booster of Tiktaalik as a transitional formed between fish and land-dwelling animals. Ray positively gushes about this guy:

Tiktaalik was an incredible find, a wonderful example of an intermediate, or transitional animal. Tiktaalik was definitely a fish, closely related to lungfish living today. Tiktaalik had fins, gills, lungs, and scales. But Tiktaalik was a fish with traits of four-limbed, land-dwelling animals. Tiktaalik was a fish with a neck and shoulders, allowing movement of the head. Tiktaalik was a fish with sturdy ribs capable of supporting air-breathing and a pelvis more robust than we commonly find in fish. And remarkably, Tiktaalik’s front fin had the same bone structure we see in all four-limbed creatures, including humans: one bone, then two bones, then lots of little bones (including wrist bones), and primitive digit bones. Tiktaalik was a fish with a wrist and neck and could most likely prop itself up on its fins and walk in shallow water, but it is unlikely Tiktaalik walked on land. (p. 113-144)

Another lobe-finned fish with a bone structure very similar to Tiktaalik is called Coelacanth. Fossilized Coelacanths have been found in strata notionally around 400 million years old, a similar age to Tiktaalik. But when last spotted, the Coelacanth was alive and swimming in the ocean depths, and, so far as science has been able to determine, has not tried to “prop itself up on its fins and walk in shallow water.”

Then there is Archaeopteryx, which was a bird but had some reptilian characteristics:

The species was named Archaeopteryx lithographica, a nod to the stone in which it was found [the fine-grained limestone was quarried for lithographic plates]. Archaeopteryx had wings, was covered in feathers, and had a furcula (the fused collarbones we call a wishbone). Bird, right? But Archaeopteryx also had a full set of teeth, a long bony tail, claws at the end of its wings, dinosaur-type vertebrae, and a slashing claw on its hind feet. Archaeopteryx was a beautiful mosaic of dinosaur and modern bird traits. (p. 116-117)

Yes, it was. But was it a missing link? “Archaeopteryx is not ancestral to any group of modern birds,” writes paleontologist Larry Martin. Instead, it is “the earliest known member of a totally extinct group of birds.” A prominent pro-evolution web site reports that, “no one is claiming that [Archaeopteryx] is the transitional species between dinosaurs and birds . . .” Rather, it is “an echo of the actual event” that “represents a grade of organization which the proposed lineage went through to get from dinosaurs to birds.” Archaeopteryx is a fascinating mosaic of reptilian and avian characteristics, but not a transitional form or “missing link.”

There are many such animals in the fossil record. They seem to be “transitional” in a general sense, but for various reasons, they are not missing links, not directly in the evolutionary line. Ray calls these fossils “cousins”:

“Evolution is not a straight-line, one-following-the-next march through time from an ancestor to a modern species. Was Tiktaalik the direct ancestor of the first four-limbed animal? Unlikely. Most likely, Tiktaalik was a cousin on the family tree leading to four-limbed animals. Tiktaalik tells us about the general trajectory of evolution from fish to four-limbed animals.” (p. 120)

What about the line supposedly leading to whales, which, we are told, is some of the best evidence for macro-evolution:

Both Indohyus and Pakicetus are transitionals, but it is unlikely that either are direct ancestors of modern whales. Indohyus and Pakicetus are cousins on the whale family tree, and both tell us about the general trajectory from land to sea. (p. 121)

Are you sensing a theme? Lots of cousins out there on the family bush, but not any real missing links, because there is always something that rules out a direct evolutionary transition. I’m thinking amalgamation, not evolution.

In the Image of God, or in the Image of an Ape-Like Ancestor?

Ray has a chapter on human evolution, which she acknowledges is a touchy subject, but she does not say why it is so sensitive. She does not mention texts like:

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Gen. 1:26-27

Or this one:

Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? Mat. 19:4-5

Or this one:

“Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.” Gen. 2:7

It is with good reason that Christians are especially bothered by the idea that humans were evolved from an ape-like ancestor, not specially created by God in His image. And yet Janet Ray, a professed Christian, has no sympathy for us, not even so much as to acknowledge our reasons for what might, in the year of our Lord 2024, be called “evolution hesitancy.” She forges ahead with her telling of the atheistic origins myth, human edition:

“About 2.2 million years ago, our genus, Homo, arose in east and southern Africa.”

Where is Eden? Where are our first parents, created in sinless glory and clothed with light by our heavenly father? According to Mrs. Ray it was all a myth:

“Maybe Adam and Eve were actual, historical people, maybe they were not. Science does not address that question any more than science addresses the historicity of Abraham, David, or Esther. What Adam and Eve cannot be, however, are the literal, genetic ancestors of all humanity.” (p. 154)

But then, of course, science, as understood by Ray, does address the question of whether the Bible is true, and holds that the Bible is not true, because the Bible teaches not only that Adam and Eve were actual historical people, but that they were the genetic ancestors of all humanity, and that they lived in a sinless paradise that we do not inhabit because their sin brought evil and death into the world.

Whither the Gospel?

Ray’s unacknowledged problem is that without Eden and the literal creation narrative, there is no gospel. The central Christian belief is that Christ, through His atoning sacrifice, is the Redeemer of mankind. (Gen. 3:15; 4:3-7; 8:20; 22:8; Ex. 20:24; 24:4-7; Lev. 1-7; 16:1-34; 17:11; Num. 28-29; I Sam. 7:9; II Chron. 29:20-24; 30:15-20; 35:1-11; Ez. 6:9-20; 7:17; 8:35; Psalm 22; Isaiah 53; Ezek. 46; Mark 10:45; 14:12; Luke 22:20; John 1:29, 36; Acts 8:32; Rom. 3:24-26; 5:10-11; 1 Cor. 5:7; 15:3; II Cor. 5:18-19; Gal. 1:3-4; 4:4-5; Eph. 1:7; 5:2; Col. 1:13-14, 19-22; I Tim. 2:5-6; Titus 2:13-14; Heb. 2:17; 9:11-28; 10:10; I Pet. 1:18-20; I John 2:2; 4:10; Rev. 5:8-13; 7:13-17; 12:11; 19:6-9; 21:22-27).

Mankind is sinful and in need of redemption because of Adam’s sin, and the resulting fall of the human race. (Gen. 3; I Kings 8:46; Psalms 51:5; 130:3; 143:2; Prov. 20:9; Eccles. 7:20; Isaiah 53:6; Hos. 6:7; John 8:23-24; I Cor. 15:22; Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:1-3; I John 1:8)

But if you do not have divinely created, sinless Adam and Eve who then sinned, you do not have a Fall, and if you do not have a Fall, mankind does not need redemption. Christ’s role as redeemer of a fallen humanity is obliterated. Since Darwinism destroys Christ’s role as Redeemer, it effectively destroys Christianity.

Those who would delete the first ten chapters of Genesis would fatally undermine the entirety of Scripture. The creation, the Fall, the plan of salvation, the sacrificial system—these are all laid out in the first ten chapters of Genesis. Without this foundation, none of the rest of the Bible makes any sense.

Jesus pointed out that faith in Moses’ writings was a prerequisite to faith in Himself: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” John 5:46-47 (RSV).

There is No Explaining Christ Without Adam

The Bible is very clear that in order to understand Christ, who is called the “Second Adam” it is necessary to believe what Scripture tells us about the first Adam:

“For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” 1 Cor. 15:22-23
“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned . . . Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. . . . For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! . . . For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” Rom. 5:12-19

There is no explaining Christ, and his role as savior and restorer not only of fallen sinners but of a marred world, without reference to Adam. Unless we understand Adam, his sin, and the Fall, we cannot understand what Christ came to do and accomplish as the second Adam. If you take away the Genesis narrative—a sinless creation, a world without death, disease, corruption and predation, a Fall into sin because Adam was given free will—you will never understand why humanity required a savior to save us from our sins and our sinful condition, to achieve atonement between God and man, to banish death and the and restore the world to its original Edenic purity and beauty.

What does Mrs. Ray have to say about the theological problems caused by her rejection of the Bible’s origins narrative? In the chapter about human evolution, nothing. But in her next and final chapter, she breezily implies that it will all blow over, just like the Galileo controversy.

Abusing the Galileo Story

Since about the 6th Century Before Christ, the geocentric model of the cosmos was the dominant view; it held that all the other heavenly bodies orbited the earth. In the 4th century BC, two influential Greek philosophers, Plato and his student Aristotle, wrote works based on the geocentric model. According to Plato, the Earth was a sphere, stationary at the center of the universe, and the heavenly bodies revolved around it.

Adherence to the geocentric model stemmed largely from the failure to detect stellar parallax; if the Earth was moving, the shapes of the constellations should change considerably over the course of a year. But because the stars are actually much farther away than Greek astronomers postulated (making angular movement extremely small), stellar parallax was not detected until the 19th century.

Although the basic tenets of Greek geocentrism were established by the time of Aristotle, the Ptolemaic system, developed by Claudius Ptolemaeus in the 2nd century AD, standardized geocentrism. Ptolemy concieved a system that was compatible with Aristotelian philosophy and succeeded in tracking actual observations and predicting future movement mostly to within the limits of the next 1000 years of observations. His work, the Almagest, was the culmination of centuries of work by many ancient astronomers. For over a millennium, European and Muslim astronomers assumed it was the correct cosmological model.

In the 16th Century, the Ptolomeic model began to break down. In 1543, just before his death, Polish astronomer and polymath (renaissance man) Nicolaus Copernicus published a book entitled, On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres, in which he posited a heliocentric solar system, one in which the planets revolved around the sun. Copernicus had been interested in this theory for almost three decades, but had never written the magisterial work that was required to properly present and defend the theory.

Interestingly, Copernicus was urged to publish by Georg Joachim Rheticus, a mathematician from the University at Wittenberg, birthplace of the Reformation. Rheticus had been sent by Phillip Melancthon, theological ally of Martin Luther, to study with Copernicus, as well as other leading astronomers and mathematicians. Rheticus began studying with Copernicus in 1539, and in 1542, Rheticus published Copernicus’ treatise on trigonometry, which became chapters 13 and 14 of the larger book. Having seen the favorable reception to this portion of the work, and at the urging of Rheticus, Copernicus finally agreed to publish the entire work.

Copernicus was a devout Catholic who had earned a doctorate in canon law. As such, he was mindful not to step on toes, not to unnecessarily antagonize scientists or theologians. He dedicated the book to Pope Paul III, who was pope at the time, explaining how earlier astronomers had failed to agree on an adequate theory of the planets, and noting that if his system increased the accuracy of astronomical predictions it would allow the Church to develop a more accurate calendar. (At that time, a reform of the Julian Calendar was needed, and was one reason why the Roman Church was interested in astronomy.)

Copernicus’ system was not immediately accepted, but soon had many well informed supporters, one of whom was Galileo Galilei, of Florence, Italy, who used telescopes to make observations of the movements of heavenly bodies. But Galileo was not the diplomat that Copernicus was, and seemed to delight in needling the Catholic prelates.

In 1632, Galileo published a popular tract called “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems.” The “Dialogue” was written in the form of a series of conversations between a heliocentrist, Salviati, an impartial but clever observer, Sagredo, and an Aristotelian, Simplicio, who defended geocentrism and was, as his named implied, a simpleton. Galileo made the impolitic mistake of putting one of this new pope’s favorite arguments—that God could have made the universe any way he wanted to and still made it appear as it does—in the mouth of Simplicio, the simpleton who had been ridiculed throughout the piece. In other words, Galileo seems to have gone out of his way to antagonize the pope.

As we’ve seen, geocentrism was not a religious theory, a biblical theory, or a Christian doctrine. The idea that the earth sits in the middle of the universe, and the other planets revolve around it was a theory that originated with the pagan Greeks. It certainly was not motivated by Bible doctrine or Bible verses, because the pagan Greeks of the 4th Century BC did not read the Bible. Moreover, geocentrism was based upon several valid observations; it seemed to explain a lot of observed facts.

Those who overthrew the geocentric system and replaced it with a heliocentric one, notably Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler, were likewise not motivated primarily by religious concerns. Copernicus, we noted, was a devout Catholic, but he was strongly urged to publish his theory by a Protestant, Rheticus. Galileo was a somewhat less devout Catholic, and Kepler, another strong proponent of heliocentrism, was a Lutheran. These people were hashing out an intensely scientific controversy, not a religious one.

Into this complex story jumps Janet Ray with a simplistic moral: science good, religion bad:

The real problem, however, was not with science. The real problem was with theology. The Catholic Church was in a defensive position, post-Reformation. Similar to the Protestants of the day, the Catholic Church claimed its practices were based on a “plain reading of Scripture.” The points of contention were literal readings of several Old Testament verses: “the world also is established, that it cannot be moved”; “who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed forever”; and in the book of Joshua “the sun stood still.” (p. 156)

No, the Roman Catholic Church has never adopted a sola scriptura posture, but has always relied ultimately upon church tradition to support its doctrine. The geocentric/heliocentric controversy was not about Scripture at all.

In reality, science wasn’t the problem. It was theology. If the earth is not the center and is just one of innumerable planets in the universe, the earth is not special to God, and therefore man holds no special place in creation. Man is no longer the apple of God’s eye and an entire belief system falls apart. The church would not allow it. (p. 157)

This is an absurd mischaracterization of the controversy. Not only does she blame the problem on religion and the Bible, she builds a straw man position that makes Christianity sound childish and silly: If the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth, “the earth is not special to God, and therefore man holds no special place in creation. Man is no longer the apple of God’s eye and an entire belief system falls apart.” That is not what the Galileo controversy was about, but the lengths to which she goes to construct a false picture with which to lampoon Christianity is by itself remarkable and telling.

Here is the crux of her argument:

Modern arguments against evolution sound very much like the theological arguments against a sun-centered solar system. If humans are just another branch in the evolutionary tree, we aren’t special to God. If we don’t have a real Adam, there can be no “fall,” and without the fall, there’s no need for Jesus. If we can’t believe Genesis, we can’t believe any of the Bible. All is lost. (p. 157)

She is asserting that the case I’ve laid out for the theological necessity of a literal Adam and Eve is just as trivial as the biblical arguments for geo-centrism. “You see,” she implies, “this whole creationism thing will blow over just like that Galileo controversy.”

Except that she’s gotten the Galileo story completely wrong. There was no real conflict between Heliocentrism and a biblical worldview. Heliocentrism was controversial in the Roman Catholic Church because it contradicted the ancient Greek philosophers Aristotle (384-322 BC) and Claudius Ptolemy (AD 100-170), and Rome defended the Greek philosophers as part of its own body of teachings.

Roman Catholic theology is a blend of Bible doctrine with the teachings of the ancient Greek philosophers. This amalgamation of Greek philosophy with Bible teaching is the pride and joy of Catholic theologians. The Greeks philosophized about the natural world, but seldom got out in it and conducted experiments. Hence, the heavily Greek-influenced Roman Catholic theologians were happy with “natural philosophy”—which is what science was called up until the late 19th Century—but did not want observational science to upset their philosophical systems. Upsetting their systems is exactly what Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and the other heliocentric scientists were doing. So, the real reason for the persecution of Galileo was not Christianity—at least not Bible Christianity—but the Roman Church’s Greek-influenced theology.

Yes, there are passages that, if read in a hyper-literal way, can be made to support geo-centrism. Ecclesiastes 1:5 states, “The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hurries to the place where it rises.” and Psalm 93:1 states, “He God has established the world, and it shall never be moved.” (KJV) But Ecclesiastes is acknowledging how it appears to us humans on earth, from our perspective. To us, it does seem like the sun travels across the sky and then circles back to its starting point in the east. And Psalms is just remarking on the fact that God created the world and it will be here forever, or until God decides otherwise; it is not asserting that the earth does not move through space.

Johannes Kepler, a heliocentrist and a very devout Lutheran, understood this. Kepler (1571-1630) was a contemporary of Galileo, and corresponded with him regarding heliocentrism. Kepler defended heliocentrism on both scientific and theological grounds. Living in Protestant Germany, Kepler was beyond the clutches of the Inquisition, but no Lutheran princes molested him, either. It was Luther ally Melancthon who sent Rheticus to study with Copernicus, and Rheticus who so passionately urged Copernicus to publish his theory.

What does it tell you that the heliocentrist within the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church, which incorporates pagan wisdom into its theology, was persecuted, but the heliocentrist within the jurisdiction of the Lutheran church, whose motto was “sola Scriptura” was not persecuted?

Beyond general insight into the contrasting nature of the two systems, it tells me that that there is a conflict between Greek philosophy and the idea that the planets orbit the sun, but no conflict between heliocentrism and Bible Christianity. Biblical theology was not the problem; Greek philosophy was.

Since she’s gotten the details wrong, Ray’s appeal to the Galileo story does not help her. It does not solve her problem. The few poetic passages that can be misconstrued to support geocentrism are in a completely different category from the hundreds of verses that confirm that God created the world and specially created man in His own image.

Conclusion

This book is a call for capitulation. It urges believers to abandon creationism, accept Darwinism, and defenestrate all those scriptural passages that clearly conflict with the evolutionary story of origins. Such an unconditional surrender is not forced by the evidence; rather, it is motivated by a spirit of compromise with the world.

It is shocking that a professed Christian would write this and feel no need to address the theological problems her position would cause. It is also shocking that the book was published by Eerdmans, a religious publisher in Grand Rapids, Michigan; that is an indication of the appalling condition of contemporary Christianity in America.

Ray seems naive about Darwinism, the purpose of which was and is to give atheists an origins story of their own to compete with the Bible’s origins story, a purpose entirely antithetical to biblical Christianity. Nothing about methodological naturalism, nothing within the rules of observational, everyday science—which was born in the culture of Protestant Christianity—requires a naturalistic, materialistic theory of origins. The decision to insist on an atheistic theory of origins is a philosophical decision, not a scientific one. All Christians working in science should understand that. Why don’t people like Janet Kellogg Ray understand that the theory of evolution is an atheistic origins narrative specifically designed to replace what God tells us in the Bible about our origins?

Apologetics