The modern interpretation of cell biology followed, for the most part, the 1953 elucidation of the DNA double helix. David Swift, a man initially perfectly happy with the neo-Darwinian synthesis, could not help reflecting on the implications of this new information. Something was terribly wrong with evolution theory. Indeed, he eventually concluded that “the complexity of biochemistry is the reef on which the theory of evolution founders.” (p. 187).

In his main argument, the author establishes that evolution, if it is to occur, requires random mutations. However this has important implications. Firstly he examines the probability of the spontaneous appearance of even one large protein molecule, for example cytochrome C (essential in energy transfer). Next he discusses the many known variations (among diverse organisms) on the cytochrome C theme. Do these prove that the molecule could have risen gradually? Apparently not. Firstly he examines the many positions in the cytochrome C molecule where no variation is found or presumably possible.

Next he examines other important macromolecules such as ubiquitin (involved in DNA repair), histone H4 (part of chromosomes), actin (part of muscle), and rubisco (involved in photosynthesis), all of which have high numbers of amino acid positions which are invariant (no substitutions possible). The situation stems, he declares, from the requirement for precise folding and precisely located active sites. Without these, the molecule has no activity. The flexibility in choices of amino acids in exterior positions does nothing to overcome the prohibitive improbability of developing the critical interior of each molecule (p. 155).

Next he considers phylogenetic trees based on variations in “homologous” molecules. It is the author’s contention that such trees show at best how relatively inconsequential changes might have taken place. What they do not show however is how an efficient modern protein could develop from a crude early form. Indeed, the author declares, when proteins first appear, they are already in fully functioning form (p. 157).

Concerning arguments involving sequence or gene duplication as sources of new molecules, the author discusses the cases of haemoglobin and myoglobin, and ferrodoxin. He demonstrates that these molecules work only when fully three-dimensional with active sites in appropriate positions. Smaller parts of the molecules would be of no benefit and would be selected against. Moreover a protein needs to be a minimum of 70 amino acids long for folding to occur properly. This process is highly sensitive and even slight variations in sequence can result in failure. Indeed he declares that “the criterion for folding by itself, is probably enough to defeat any attempt at finding a protein randomly” (p. 176). But there is more bad news. Every gene for a protein also requires at the same time, the operation of numerous control sequences in order for the macromolecule to be expressed. And even if it were produced, the protein requires the cooperative action of numerous other proteins in order for it to be effective. These simultaneous requirements push the probabilities for random development of macromolecules basically down to never never land.

While the author agrees that the operation of natural selection is real and has important implications for ecology, he now realizes that evolution and natural selection are not the same thing (p. 220). While the effects of natural selection are to shuffle and segregate various versions of a gene, macroevolution requires new information in the form of new genes. Natural selection cannot provide that (p. 247). The popular examples of resistance to antibiotics and insecticides, he points out, upon closer examination turn out to be unfavourable mutations in already existing genes (pp. 235-244). Based on his new understanding of macromolecules, he declares that “the fundamental evolutionary principle of incremental progress fails completely at the level of molecular biology” (p. 318). That is the death knell for the neo-Darwinian synthesis.

Based on his conclusions from molecular biology, in similar vein, the author discusses origin of life speculations, the origin of the eukaryotic cells, and the origin of sex. In every case he considers molecular details which are devastating to evolution. Also he considers cladistics and homology.

No discussion of origins is complete without reference to the fossil record. Based on molecular biology and population genetics, David Swift had already concluded that primordial organisms were equipped with all the genetic information they would ever need and that these early populations rapidly diversified by gene segregation into clusters of related taxa (p. 250 and 257). This sounds very close to archetypes or the modern creationist concept of baramins (created kinds). With a view such as this, the author is obviously going to be critical of modern conclusions on the fossil record. Indeed what he sees is a record of sudden appearances in the strata: “No phylum can be traced from a preceding one in the fossil record, in fact we cannot account for the origin of a single phylum: they all appear abruptly. This is also true of lower taxonomic groups such as classes and orders, and possibly lower still” (p. 295).

This book demonstrates what happens when an individual really looks at the evidence from nature. The author prefaces his main argument (which does not begin until p. 115) with a somewhat tedious review of the history of science. Once he reaches the main body of this work however, the text comes alive. It is clear, interesting and with occasional glimpses of humour. The book includes few footnotes, but this probably makes it easier to follow. This book is ideal for university students and scientifically literate adults who seek a current introduction to the problems with evolution theory. This is a highly effective book which we will surely want to distribute on university campuses everywhere. Is there a student in your life who would benefit?

The exoskeleton that covers spiders (and insects and crustaceans like crayfish) is hard and very unsticky. The ‘feet’ of this jumping spider however feature a tuft of hairs, each hair of which has many smaller hairs (called setae) and these have yet smaller flat triangular hairs called setules. Each foot boasts about 78,000 setules for a total of about 624,000 setules per individual spider. A team of German scientists measured the force with which a tiny probe would stick to a setule. They found that the adhesive force was so strong that this system would still work for a spider 173 times heavier (2 g rather than the actual 15 mg).

The question as to how very different animals come to possess similar sophisticated designs, has recently much occupied the minds of secular scientists. While creationists see obvious design and irreducible complexity, evolutionists talk about ‘convergence’. Their interpretation is that separate evolutionary lines of descent “converged” on the same solution. Why this should be so is a difficult problem for evolutionists. One who has given the issue considerable thought is English palaeontologist Simon Conway Morris in his book Life’s Solution. Unintentionally he illustrates why ‘convergence’ is such a problem for evolution.

When the expectations of evolutionary science are not met, some people respond by questioning evolutionary assumptions, but not Simon Conway Morris. This man firmly declares his support for evolution: “Evolution is true, it happens, it is the way the world is…” (p. xv). One wonders if he protests too much when he later declares: “A recurrent theme of this book is not only the implications of convergence for evolution, but also the problems it can pose for its resolution. Not, I hasten to add, in terms of the reality of evolution. This is emphatically not in question; rather the reverse…” (p. 144).

The cause of Dr. Morris’ embarrassment concerning the evolutionary position quickly becomes apparent. Firstly in a section entitled ‘Eerie Perfection’ he considers the nature of DNA, the famous genetic code found in all living organisms. He cites a study, published in 1998, which examined the efficiency of millions of possible codes and which came to the ‘startling’ conclusion that the way in which DNA carries information is the best there is. Werner Gitt independently came to the same conclusion in his book In the Beginning was Information (p. 94 in the 1997 English edition). While Werner Gitt sees the hand of the Creator, Simon Conway Morris comes to the conclusion that such a result was natural but inevitable (p. 18).

The reader might wonder how anyone can declare a surprising phenomenon to be ‘inevitable’. His solution is to appeal to undiscovered physical laws which, he supposes, allow only certain natural forms to develop. This is a popular position these days. How often do we hear that chance and ‘necessity’ drive evolution? Philosopher Stephen C. Meyer however discusses this position in a new book entitled Darwinism, Design and Public Education. In it Dr. Meyer points out that scientific laws describe highly repetitive events, while “information sequences are complex, not repetitive.” Therefore he says “information mounts as improbabilities multiply. Thus, to say that scientific laws can produce information is essentially a contradiction in terms” (p. 255).

Despite the fact that he really lacks any explanation for the genetic code other than ‘inevitability’, Dr. Morris applies similar reasoning to all biological phenomena. He declares that “life is full of inherencies” (p. 8), that evolution is “constrained, if not bound” (p. 12). He therefore insists that “life shows a kind of homing instinct. Its central paradox revolves around the fact that despite its fecundity and baroque richness life is also strongly constrained. The net result is a genuine creation, almost unimaginably rich and beautiful, but one also with an underlying structure in which, given enough time, the inevitable must happen.” The mere declaration that nature, on its own, possesses astonishing properties however, does not make it true.

Before the author turns his attention to living organisms, he examines some peripheral issues. Firstly he considers origin of life scenarios. What he finds is “a picture that can only be described as distinctly discouraging” (p. 49) from an evolutionary point of view, that is. He then turns his attention to reasons why Earth is so ideally suited for life. When Dr. Morris considers the importance of the moon and the planets for our comfort, he confides: “the peculiarities of the Moon help to epitomize the principle theme of this book, the odd fortuitousness of the world in which we find ourselves, where again and again matters seem to be remarkably well arranged” (p. 69). This is certainly food for thought.

All the above details form the prologue to the main argument of the book, the amazing way in which organisms of entirely different body plans, nevertheless often possess complex features which are very similar. For example, consider the case of the camera-eye such as we possess. Everyone knows that this is a very complicated organ. Not only are animals with backbones and humans provided with such a fine-tuned light receptor, but also some invertebrates (without a backbone) such as the octopus, some marine annelids (similar to earthworms), and two shore-snails (e.g. the winkle Littorina), also a cubozoan jellyfish and the ogre-faced spider (Dinopis dinopis). Obviously the camera eye could not have appeared in this strange assortment of organisms through descent with modification from a common ancestor.

The point of Dr. Morris’ book is to declare that convergence happens since nature has only a few options available. This is what he means when he says nature is constrained. Thus even when very different organisms are faced with the same problem, they may well nevertheless come to the same solution. That is how he explains the appearance of camera-eyes in such a diverse collection of creatures. Even he, however, admits that the snails do not fit his explanation because their lifestyle is very different. There are many other instances too, of organisms with similar designs which nevertheless lack any needs in common (for example the sperm whale and a desert plant [jojoba] which both possess a unique liquid wax).

In the case of the gecko and the jumping spider, one wonders what common problems these two organisms share that other reptiles and spiders do not exhibit. Why, other than choice by the Designer, would these creatures be so unique?

It used to be that ‘convergence’ was regarded as unusual, an exception to the typical evolutionary process. However we now know, says Dr. Morris, that nature is full of such strange situations (p. 109). Some people conclude that here we see abundant testimony to intelligent design or creation. Not Dr. Morris. He may call convergence “eerie” (p. 128), but he is not about to change his mind about natural processes. Thus he declares “Evolutionary convergence shows that we live in a constrained world, where all may not be possible” (p. 298). Indeed he lumps all nature into these inevitabilities: “Not only is the Universe strangely fit to purpose, but so, too, as I have argued throughout this book, is life’s ability to navigate its solutions” (p. 327).

This book is full of fascinating examples of design which the author, in keeping with his evolutionary views, calls convergence. You don’t have to be an evolutionist to appreciate the examples, quite the contrary. When you understand the nature of the Creator, all these providential conditions and amazing situations, make sense.

Ivan was a true gentleman, a fine educator, a good friend and an active Christian. He knew “everybody” in education in Alberta and many in politics. Moreover, he and his wife Irene, took great pleasure in supporting many worthwhile endeavours. In their later years at their acreage, they grew flowers and food which they generously shared. If anybody needed help, they were there for them.

In 2002 Ivan was awarded the Queen’s Golden Jubilee Medal for his work in education. His career in this profession had indeed been worthy of note. For 36 years he had taught in centres including Edmonton, Fort Saskatchewan, Lacombe and Rimbey. His success as a teacher was also recognized in 1969 when he was elected President of the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA). He then became the first president to serve two consecutive terms.

Through the years, as a science teacher, Ivan observed changes in the content, emphasis and objectives of the provincial curriculum. Because he disagreed with some changes, and because of his devotion to good education and good information, he became a founding member in 1975 of the Creation Science Association of Alberta. Some other teachers in the public system as well as some other interested individuals, also became founding members. For more than 20 years Ivan served as president of this association. The objective was to demonstrate to Christians and to the public, that nature and the Bible both demonstrate the work and character of God. An important aim was (and is) to persuade schools to allow interested students and teachers the opportunity to discuss these issues. The first step, of course, is for these institutions to stock suitable creation-based titles in their libraries and for school jurisdictions to list these on their recommended reading lists.

Other aspects of Ivan’s life are equally remarkable and interesting. One of ten children (of which six were sons) born to John and Olive Stonehocker, he grew up on a farm near Vegreville. Later, at Bible School in Wetaskiwin, he met Irene Gustavson, whom he married in 1942. The previous year he had enlisted in the Canadian Air Force and in 1943 he was transferred overseas. With the rank of Flight Lieutenant, he then acted as navigator for more than thirty bombing missions over enemy territory. His perfect record of “on target, on time” earned him the Distinguished Flying Cross. This was presented to him by King George VI in a ceremony in Buckingham Palace. After the war, Ivan returned to the University of Alberta in Edmonton. There he earned a B.Sc. in agriculture and a B.Ed. in science.

Both Ivan and Irene were teachers, but later Irene stayed in the home with their three children. Nevertheless, in all their activities, Ivan and Irene were a team. Over the years, Ivan gave many talks on creation. He spoke to fellow teachers at conventions, to Christians in churches and to the public on radio and in debates. His friendly, knowledgeable manner was always a great asset. Thus as well as a remarkable teacher, Ivan was a great Canadian and a fine Christian. He was a man of vision and we shall miss him.

Let’s turn our attention, for example to Borneo, the third largest island in the world. Only Greenland and New Guinea are larger. Greenland, of course, lies off the coast of eastern North America and except for attempts to claim nearby islands in the Canadian Arctic, does not concern us here. For those who are as geographically challenged as I am, Borneo and New Guinea both lie in an archipelago of islands off southeast Asia. Indonesia controls part of New Guinea, while the rest is an independent country called Papua New Guinea. Similarly Borneo is split up between three political jurisdictions: Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei. Apparently in the northeast of the island, in territory belonging to Indonesia and Malaysia, there exists a small population of elephants. The closest population of elephants is 1300 km away on the island of Sumatra. Many people wonder if the Borneo elephants are good for the island or not. After all, big animals have big appetites.

Most people have assumed that these animals were introduced to Borneo from India within the past few centuries. If this were true, these animals are not native to the region and thus are basically newcomers or intruders into the local ecology. Perhaps the local ecosystem would do better without them. An alternative hypothesis proposes that these elephants have lived on the island for many thousands of years since a time perhaps when land bridges linked these islands to the mainland. If the elephants have lived on the island that long, then they are indeed as native as other animals. In that case, this elephant population would extend the native range of the Asian elephant by 1300 km. Presumably elephants once roamed throughout the region, but since then have died out in the area between. In this case the elephant population could have been isolated for a long time. Such a distant population of elephants would have been unable to interbreed with other elephant populations of the same species. Their pedigree or line of genetic descent would therefore long have been unique to this area. The elephants could well be genetically distinct from other populations and therefore scientifi cally very interesting. As a result the Borneo elephants would constitute, in the eyes of secular scientists, an “evolutionarily significant unit” and they would enjoy a high priority for conservation. Thus either the elephants are valuable or they are not, either they are worthy of preservation or worthy of extermination. The value depends upon their genes.

In order to answer the question of value of the Borneo elephants, an international team of scientists undertook to sequence several pieces of DNA from the Borneo population and to compare these with the gene sequences of other elephants from other countries.

What the scientists found was that the genetic information of the Borneo elephants, while roughly similar to other Asian elephants, was nevertheless quite distinct. Such differences could not have developed within a few hundred years. Conclusions about biological value do not depend upon the elephant’s role in the ecosystem or their appearance, but on their presumed lengthy evolutionary history. This seems an artificial way to value anything, and certainly one which we would not condone. The attempt to eliminate non-native plants and animals is found in many political jurisdictions these days. The case of the Borneo elephant illustrates how artificial this criterion can be. Nothing intrinsic to the animals has changed except man’s opinion as to their source. Mans objective is to assist “evolution” in its work. Perhaps biologists should instead adopt the motto “Don’t fix what isn’t broken.” Leave nature alone. Of course it is still prudent to eliminate invasive organisms which devastate the local ecology. That list includes such animals as rabbits and cane toads in Australia and weedy plant species everywhere.

So what are we to conclude about the genetic differences of these elephants and other populations of the same species? Does this demonstrate evolution in action? No! What we see here are accumulating small variations in detail. These small changes never lead to new information, just variation on the same elephant theme. In this case the elephants even look the same. Biologists could not tell the difference between a long isolated population and a recent introduction. Mutations and natural selection lead to small variations, never to new kinds of organism. The Borneo elephants are not on their way to becoming anything else, just more elephants.