A Perfect World

It is written in the book of Genesis that God pronounced everything that He had created to be good, indeed very good:

And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:31

There could have been no disharmonious note in this new creation, and according to the Scriptures, this creation was also not subject to death. Man was created in the image of God, and he was to be the ruler over everything that God had created.

And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in His [own] image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Genesis 1:26-28

The creation of man was thus the crowning act of God�s creation, and God endowed man with nobility and honor by granting him dominion of the newly created world. Of all the creatures God had created, man was different from all the other animals in that he was created in the image of God. To man was granted the gift of intellectual capacity, a creative spirit, and a sense of morality. He was also created a free agent in that he was endowed with a freedom of choice. The creation of man was to bring glory to God throughout eternity.

I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; [Even] every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him. Isaiah 43:6-7

These verses show that the children of men are called sons and daughters of God (heavenly princes), and that they were created for the glory of God. Man was to reflect the glory of God and to ever increase in knowledge and wisdom, and to ever reflect the glory of God. In the book of Hebrews, Paul picks up the theme of the creation of man and sheds some interesting light on this subject.

Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands. Hebrews 2:7

The Greek word brachus (for a little) literally means �for a little while� or �short time� and this implies that the full meaning of the text is actually �for a little while lower than the angels�. Man was thus to grow in stature, and in the restored world it would not be the angels that would rule upon the earth restored, but restored man would be granted the privilege of sitting with Christ in His throne. This implies even greater glory, since Christ is the ruler of the universe.

For unto the angels hath He not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. Hebrews 2:5

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with Me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with My Father in His throne.
Revelation 3:21

Before being restored, there is, however, some overcoming to be done, for man has forfeited his great privilege through sin, and has lost that glory with which he was originally endowed.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23

The Scriptures teach that the change of status and the suffering which this planet and mankind have had to endure since the fall of man would, however, be transformed back to the original through the purchase of the blood of Christ. Through Christ and in Him, man can overcome and be conquerors together with Him. What was lost in Eden can and will be restored through Christ through justification and sanctification to the glorification of those who accept the gift of His purchase, and then only will the full potential of man be realized.

For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time [are] not worthy [to be compared] with the glory which shall be revealed in us. Romans 8:18

And that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory. Romans 9:23

The earth is also to be restored to its original status and sin will be eradicated from the universe.

For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. Isaiah 65:17

For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. Isaiah 66:22

Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 2 Peter 3:13

The Scriptures also teach that the whole creation is groaning whilst we wait for the restoration that has been promised. It is at this point that the sons of God will be revealed and that the bondage to corruption (death) will come to an end.

Not only is man suffering from the consequences of sin, but the entire creation is also groaning under the burden of decay.

For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. Romans 8:19-22

The Genesis account of the creation and the fall is the exact opposite of the naturalistic view of origins. Genesis portrays a decline from perfection to degeneration and decay, and the naturalistic approach propagates an advance from chaos to order and perfection. Genesis gives explicit details as to the consequences of sin and fall, all of which are denied by the naturalistic approach, and these details are, in fact, reversed and used as the very means to create the advance from imperfection to perfection. Death is used to �create� better-adapted forms, and the cycles of death, which are enacted on the planet through prey and predator relationships, are the nurturing ground for adaptive radiation. According to the Scriptures, however, this was not so from the beginning and prey predator relationships originally never existed and will also not exist in the earth made new.

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice�s den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea. Isaiah 11:6-9

These verses portray an order of things, which is totally different to what we currently experience on the planet. Firstly, there will be no carnivores and the current predators will thus revert to vegetarian diets, and secondly, all harmful creatures which sting or are venomous will revert to non harmful forms. Moreover, even a child will be able to lead the now dangerous predators, so all aggressiveness will be removed from the natures of these animals and man will once more have total control over the animal kingdom. This restoration is in line with what the book of Genesis portrays about the beginning and about the original diet of all the creatures on the planet.

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so. Genesis 1:29-30

According to this verse, all creatures were thus vegetarian, and man�s diet consisted of seeds and fruits and all animals ate the plants of the fields. There could have been no harmful bacteria, no parasites, in fact, no creatures with harmful effects at all. What happened then to mar this perfection? The Scriptures teach that sin entered in and that as a consequence, the order of nature was radically changed. Without the sustaining power of God (for He �upholds all things�), the second law of thermodynamics would henceforth ensure that only by the sweat of one's brow could order and harmony be obtained. Disorder, according to the Scriptures, is the work of the enemy. According to the parable of the sower, it was the enemy that sowed the bad seed among the good.

An Imperfect Planet

After the fall, the order of nature was changed. According to Scripture, the serpent was cursed and lost some its original abilities, even undergoing dramatic anatomical changes in that it would henceforth move on its belly. The statement that it would eat dust is a reference to death since all creatures would return to the dust from whence they came. Also the fact that some snakes still have rudimentary legs could be an indication of a genetic change which deactivated the genes responsible for the development of the original locomotory structures.

The relationship between man and woman was also changed through the entrance of sin and in order to deal with the changed circumstances there was a shift in role distribution which has become the object of much debate and in some cases much misery. The ground was cursed and would henceforth not yield its strength and it would take toil to glean its treasures. Adam would henceforth earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, which means that the provision of the necessities of life was to become his burden in the transformed world. Eve, on the other hand would find the raising of children with right characters a task that would require concerted effort and a task that would require patience and many tears. Eve did not receive the lesser role in this new situation, for the raising of descendants with right characters is the noblest of all tasks.

Not only did the role distribution change, but physical aspects of human and animal existence also changed. In a world that would not yield its strength, plants would produce thorns and thistles and the diet and lifestyles of all the created creatures would be affected. To the diet of man, the plants of the field were added in order to augment his diet, and the animals must have also undergone dramatic changes in diet, as their food supply must also have been affected. After Cain killed Abel, there was a further decline, which was to mar the once perfect planet. Cain was cursed and the ground was to yield even less of its strength (Genesis 4:12). Both animals and man must have been affected by this change of circumstances and wickedness increased until God destroyed the world by bringing about the flood.

Prior to the flood, the animal world had already changed to such an extent that animals were already classified into clean and unclean categories since Noah was instructed to take seven pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean animals on board the ark. The flood brought about a further radical change, and the diets of man and beast must have been further affected, since God added flesh to the already changed human diet. After the flood, there was a rapid decline in the life expectancy of man (and by implication in the animals as well). Life expectancy of man was approximately halved after the flood. After the time of Peleg (when the earth was divided), life expectancy was halved once more, and by the time of Moses the average life span was down to 120 years. By the time of David, it had declined to 80 years, and today it is still lower.

The existence of evil in a world created by the God of light and love is one of the principle reasons why many reject God. However, God has given all the reasons for the state of affairs and has also provided a solution in Christ to repurchase the lost possession. This same issue plagued Darwin, and he once wrote a letter to his friend Dr. Asa Gray regarding this matter:

I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see so plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence for design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. (1)

He also wrote in 1844 in his initial draft of The Origin of Species:

It is derogatory that the Creator of countless Universes should have made by individual acts of His will the myriads of creeping parasites and worms, which since the earliest dawn of life have swarmed over the land and in the depths of the ocean �.. We cease to be astonished that a group of animals should have been transformed to lay their eggs in the bowels and flesh of other sensitive beings; that some animals should live by and delight in cruelty; that animals should be led away by false instincts; that annually there should be an incalculable waste of the pollen, eggs and immature beings� (2)

Charles Darwin was thus swayed to reject the hand of God in nature and to accept the naturalistic approach, but his conjectures and conclusions were based on the assumption that the present biological interactions apparent in nature, must have existed since the inception of life. This is not necessarily true, and we could ask the question: Does the evidence point to decay with elements of perfection and design serving as reminders of a once perfect situation, or does the evidence point to past imperfection and progress toward greater and greater perfection? The fossil record already reveals greater diversity in the past than in the present, and life also exploded on the scene in what has been termed the Cambrian explosion. These two factors alone point in the exact opposite direction to what naturalistic evolution would propose and they are consistent with the creation account. Let us examine some of the issues involved.

Evidence for Design

Wherever we look we find evidence for design. The marvel of life, the great variety of life forms, the miracle of flight in birds and insects all have inspired designers and engineers to try and emulated the successes so apparent in nature. The flight of birds has inspired the aeronautical world and even the so-called primitive dragonfly has inspired flight engineers to design the helicopter. Even the feathers that are used in flight present design features that could not possibly have evolved gradually. The list of biological wonders in the organism and cell organelle world that smack of design is endless, but for the purpose of this discussion we will only look at a few examples.

The genome: The greatest evidence for design in the biosphere lies in the genome. Genetics and evolutionary principles are at loggerheads with each other. From the beginning of these sciences they were opposed to each other, since Mendel clearly demonstrated that individual characteristics were carefully conserved and Darwin, not being aware of Mendel�s work, proposed change of inherited characteristics as the nurturing ground for evolution. Today we know that variations induced by the environment are not passed on to the next generation, as Darwin believed in his time. Individuals exposed to the sun get darker, physical activity enhances muscular development etc. but these traits are not inherited. Mendel also showed that genetic recombinants may have latent features which can resurface at a later stage, thus showing that the traits were not lost but could enhance or decrease variation in the phenotype in accordance to the level in which they were expressed. The genome is thus conservative yet versatile.

The scientific fraternity proposes that mutations are the nurturing ground for providing new and exciting genetic material, but only the opposite has been shown to be true in actual observations and experiment. In the fruit fly Drosophila alone, some 3000 mutations have been identified, (3) and all of them are either harmful or have no effect but none of them produce more successful fruit flies. The most important nurturing ground for evolution thus seems hopelessly inadequate, or rather counterproductive, to the evolutionary process. In addition, we need to remind ourselves that, as noted in the previous chapter, natural selection cannot create anything. It can only select from what is already there and then only if it is expressed in the phenotype. The entire genome thus exudes design, yet DNA is not alive. It is a dead molecule and needs the machinery of the living cell to make copies of itself. The information for that cell is, however, in the genome, and the DNA is simply the carrier of the information. In order to read the information, you need the equipment to unravel it and translate it and the information for that equipment is in the DNA itself. No matter how one looks at it, design is the only solution for the dilemma.

The cell: If we progress from the genome to the cell, we see that the cell is not just a chance blob of fortuitous molecules come together to form protoplasm. It is rather an intricate machine with marvelous order and elements of design. In 1996, Michael Behe, a working biochemist, published the book Darwin�s Black Box. (4) Behe pointed out that the cell, far from being a �simple little lump of albuminous combinations of carbon�, as thought in Darwin�s day, was actually an entire factory, filled with molecular machines of astounding precision and complexity. Within these complex structures, there are numerous individual microstructures and cellular systems in which vast numbers of parts and enzyme systems work together in such a way that they will only function if every single piece is in place. Removal of even one link in the biochemical systems does not reduce the efficiency; it eliminates the function of the organelle entirely. He called this situation �irreducible complexity�, and it is totally inconsistent with the evolutionary concept of gradual change over time. Only design could account for such complexity. Darwin himself, in The Origin of Species, stated that precisely such a situation would disprove his theory:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down

The living machinery of cells proves precisely this point. There are myriads of processes that are of this nature and that require closely coordinated biochemical sequential reactions, each governed by intricate feedback systems, which in turn require receptors which will activate them at precisely the right point in time. It is not within the scope of this site to elaborate on the finer details of these processes, but even some of the simpler biochemical pathways such as the production of some amino acids which require closed systems are highly complex and organized. The enzymes involved in the production of these amino acids are also coded for by genes and need the very amino acids which they themselves have to produce in order to exist in the first place. As discussed in the previous chapter, the probability of the complex machinery such as RNA or DNA or viable enzymes coming about by chance is so mind bogglingly remote as to be non-existent. To cite just one example, the probability of just the smaller of the ribosomal subunits (consisting of 1500 nucleotides) coming about by chance is 10903 and this figure is so large that it is beyond comprehension (remember that 1080 is the estimated number of particles in the known universe).

Organs: Organs such as the eyes, ears, kidneys and others show levels of complexity that smack of design. The brain is a mystery of ingenuity that baffles the greatest intellects on earth and makes even the world�s super computers look like feeble toys by comparison. The electrical design and storage capacity of the nervous system is a further mystery which is astounding. There may be up to one hundred trillion synapses in the brain, and each one acts as a filter, a signal disseminator, and a calculator ensuring the flow of and the filtering of information. The capacity to store information is infinite and to crown it all, the brain makes it possible to appreciate beauty, it makes us creative and makes us beings capable of moral judgments.

A comprehensive study of all the intricate design details in the various organ systems found in the animal kingdom would require untold volumes of books, and then we would still be limited by our incomplete knowledge of these systems. As a comparative physiologist, I have always been fascinated by the numerous complex systems, which require clockwork precision at both the anatomical and physiological level. Systems such as the countercurrent exchange and multiplier systems, which are found in the gills of fish, the lungs of birds and in the kidneys of mammals also require full structural development before they will function. One wonders how such systems could have evolved gradually over time since in the case of the counter current multiplier system in the kidney, for example, no halfway developed system would work. These counter current systems make for highly efficient oxygen exchange, and in the case of the countercurrent multiplier systems of the mammalian kidney, they create the capacity to concentrate urine against concentration gradients. The systems have to be complete before they work and this implies design.

The Eye: For the sake of this discussion, let us limit ourselves to some of the organ systems that have produced lively discussions in scientific circles. One such system is that of the eye, which has received much attention from evolutionists, and some claim that they have solved the issue of its evolutionary development and have found mechanisms to explain how such an intricate organ could have evolved naturalistically.(6) On a comparative morphological level, one can arrange the various light sensitive organs found in the animal kingdom in a sequence from simple eyespots found even in protozoans to the highly complex structures found in vertebrates and invertebrates. There is a vast difference, however, between arranging a simple sequence of light sensitive organs, and putting together the complex structure which constitutes the vertebrate eye with its auto-accommodation, complex iris structure (somewhat like a video camera), and highly complex nervous connections. The eye in itself does not even explain how one sees, since what happens in the brain to convert the simple nerve impulses into images is a mystery. Scientists have used computer models to reconstruct the possible evolution of the eye, but notoriously absent from these models are the intricate retina, which contains more than 100 million light sensitive cells called rods and cones which enable us to see in dim light, bright light and provide color vision. Also absent from their models are the mechanisms which control the lens and iris and of course the mechanisms which lead to the perception and translation of the information. The biochemical reactions associated with sight are also fascinatingly intricate.

The retina of the eye has been an issue of hot debate, since it seems to be inside out with the light sensitive disks facing away from the light source and several nerve cells lying in the path of the light. This has prompted numerous derogatory statements, such as �in fact it is stupidly designed� (7), from evolutionists with regard to the concept that the eye needed to have been constructed by intelligent design. The eye works perfectly as it is, and is a marvel of engineering in spite of the malicious remarks to the contrary which some scientists dare to make. Dr. Steve Jones, Professor of Genetics at University College, London, has even ventured to say regarding the eye: �The feeblest designer could improve it�8 and he calls it the work of an �an insensible drudge: an instrument, like all others, built by a tinkerer rather than by a trained engineer� (one wonders why he does not trade it in for something better). In fact, the eye is brilliantly designed and the retina is inside out for a very specific purpose. In the area of the retina which is responsible for sharp vision, the fovea, the nerve cells, which elsewhere in the retina lie between the cones and the light source, are almost completely absent, and the nerve fibers radiate away from the central region thus allowing clear vision.

Also there is a good reason for the orientation of the rods and cones toward the pigment region and not towards the light source, which lies on the outside of the retina. These rods and cones are constantly replacing the visual pigment disks and the old ones are disposed of by being absorbed by the pigment epithelial cells. In the rhesus monkey, for example, each rod produces 80 to 90 new disks per day (9) and since the human eye probably experiences the same rate of replacement, that would mean that some 9000 million disks are replaced daily. Should the retina not be �inside out�, then the pigment epithelial cells would not absorb the disks and the vitreous humor of the eye would rapidly become murky and lead to rapid visual impairment. The pigment epithelial layer could obviously not lie on the other side of the retina so that the light sensitive bits would face the incoming light, since then there would be even more cells between the light source and the retina. Of course, the pigment epithelium must lie exactly where it does lie, since it not only absorbs old disks, it also supplies the nutrients needed for the production of new ones and receives these nutrients from the rich blood supply in the choroids layer right next to it. Obviously, without the blood supply the whole system would break down. If the retina really was �stupidly designed� and were orientated the other way round as these scientists claim, then the blood supply would also have to be on the inside of the eye between the light sources and the rods and cones, and that would totally disrupt vision.

Crustacean eyes are equally astounding, particularly since they work on a different system. They focus light by reflection rather than refraction by a lens. Within these eyes, there are tiny perfectly square tubes with flat and shiny mirror sides, which perfectly focus the light to a central point. The square arrangement is crucial because only with this arrangement can a perfect image be derived from light rays striking from any direction.(10) Scientists have emulated this design in their space programs by incorporating these intricate design features in their telescopes so that they could observe a quarter of the sky at any one time (11), but nature is supposed to have produced it by chance.

Ears are a further example of intricate design, and some species in the animal kingdom show absolute phenomenal abilities of hearing and tracking. The sonar systems of whales, porpoises, and bats are some of the most amazing structures on earth, and engineers have studied these systems in order to create detection devises and sounding devices to use for military or other purposes. Scientists have learnt amazing things, but still have not been able to duplicate the precision achieved by some of these organisms. The US Navy, in fact, uses dolphins to find and track submarines or other submersed objects. The design of the seal's hearing apparatus is equally baffling, and the so called earless seals, as well as dolphins, have only tiny pinprick holes for ears, but fat bundles in the jaws and ear canals are shaped like trumpets and conduct the sound extraordinarily well. (12)

Ears do not only record sound, they also provide information about where that sound is coming from. This is achieved by separating the ears spatially so that there will be a time difference and a slight difference in intensity in the recording of the sound by each ear. This information is then used to calculate where the sound is coming from. In tiny insects with incredible capacities for hearing and directional sourcing this becomes an engineering feat, which is astounding since their ears are often only fractions of a millimeter apart. In the tiny fly Ormia ochracea, the ears are only 0.5 mm apart yet the fly can source the direction that sound comes from with pin point accuracy. (13), (14) The difference in the time between the two ears hearing the sound is only 1� microseconds (millionths of a second) with practically 0% intensity difference. This amazing ability is achieved by coupling the eardrums with a flexible lever, resulting in resonance, which increases the time difference 40 times. The drum nearest the sound then also vibrates some 10 decibels stronger. Finally, the nerves also respond in coded fashion creating a further five fold increase. These masterful design features are already being incorporated into hearing aids and could be used in directional microphone technology.

Co-evolution or design?

If we look at the marvelous relationships that exist in nature between animals and plants then it is hard to envision how such harmony could have come about by strategies and counterstrategies of co-evolution. Numerous plants can only be pollinated by specifically adapted insects that in turn are nurtured by the plants themselves. Evolutionists explain these relationships by suggesting that the two co-evolved. However, what if the fortuitous mutations were out of synchronization? Then the species would not survive. Moreover, considering the millions of such relationships which exist in the world, the likelihood of them having come about by chance are so remote as to be non-existent. In the protea flowers and fynbos flowers in general (the most diverse group of plants in the world), each of the thousands of species is pollinated by highly specific beetles which inhabit only those types to which they are adapted. These highly specific symmetrical arrangements speak of design. Further examples are the highly specific species of wasps that pollinate the various species of figs. Then there are further significant problems with some of the evolutionary paradigms regarding the co-evolution of plant insect relationships. Petrified forests in Arizona contain what are apparently bee�s nests, but these nests were then made more than 100 million years before the supposed evolution of the flowering plants on which the bees depend for survival.(14)

The co-evolution of so-called anti herbivory phytochemicals (secondary compounds that plants produce to prevent herbivores from eating them) is a further problem, since the various herbivores would then have to evolve counterstrategies in order to still be able to continue utilizing these food sources. Evolutionists envisage a constant strategy and counterstrategy between plants and animals. Some plants produce toxic substances which some animals seem to cope with and others not. Moreover, plants produce secondary compounds which prevent overgrazing as well. These compounds (such as tannins for example) are concentrated in the ephemeral tissues (young leaves and buds) and the animals tend to avoid these tissues, thus ensuring growth of the plants. Moreover, plants can increase the levels of these compounds in the older leaves as well, which happens when the leaves are broken, eg. during grazing. The broken leaves release pheromones which induce the non-broken leaves of even nearby trees to increase the levels of these deterring compounds. Generally speaking, this ability thus prevents overgrazing, since the animals find the higher levels less palatable and move on to non affected areas.

Instead of supposing such delicate strategies as evolving over millions of years, it seems logical to assume that such a finely balanced system is the result of a superb design. Firstly, only certain animals are adapted to certain specific compounds and they choose the plants with those compounds as their food source, thus ensuring even distribution over the wide varieties of food sources (for example, the specialized feeders such as the koala bears that are attracted to the eucalyptus oils which other species avoid). Secondly, by concentrating deterrent compounds in sensitive tissues, the plants ensure continued growth and propagation, and thirdly, by increasing the levels in areas that are generally eaten only after the grazing has actually begun (such as when the older leaves produce pheromones that induce them to increase the levels of deterrent substances), overgrazing is avoided. This is a brilliant system that speaks of design. If it was really a case of anti herbivory strategies, then surely plants would have developed toxic compounds that would kill the herbivore and thus prevent all further herbivory.

Evidence for Transformation

We have already seen that the genome is endowed with a vast capacity for variation and that even more variety is possible through the differential expression of the genes. It is thus possible to produce dramatic changes in form and structure by just modifying the way in which the genes are expressed, or by changing the developmental expressions, or by the activation or deactivation of genes within the genome. If environmental conditions were to change, plants and animals could adapt to these new conditions by differentially employing the genes and gene controlling mechanisms available in order to survive. There would be no need to wait for some fortuitous mutation to occur in order to overcome new obstacles because, in a sense, all organisms would have been preadapted to deal with change within the limits set by their genetic composition. Moreover, some animals could survive even drastic changes provided they were preadapted with the tools that would allow them to enter entirely new adaptive zones, such as the transition from a herbivorous to a carnivorous lifestyle.

Plants: After the fall, according to the Genesis account, the ground was cursed, and plants and animals were transformed. Some plants were to bring forth thorns and thistles, and it is to be presumed that changes in seasons could have brought about deciduous trees in order to cope with the new conditions. Weeds are nothing other than plants that compete strongly with cultivated forms. Isn�t it strange that most of the plants that man uses for food are the plants that have to be nurtured and pampered in order to yield their crops, and if left to themselves, they rapidly get pushed aside by other plants which readily out-compete them? If all these plants existed so long before man, why are these food plants are still around? It certainly seems as if sweat of the brow is what keeps the food supply coming in, and that hard work is what is necessary to ensure the survival of the necessary food plants. According to Genesis, work was also necessary before the fall because the plants were to be dressed and kept, how much more so after the fall.

God said that thorns and thistles would appear. Thorns are really just modified stems in which the growth process has been modified (differential expression of the developmental genes), and spines are modified leaves which have followed the same pattern. There is no new information here, just a modification of the existing pattern. Originally, according to the Scriptures, plants were watered by rising levels of subterranean water and by a morning mist. Such conditions are often simulated in greenhouses today where it has been found that watering the root systems alone prevents leaf fungus whereas wetting the leaves with sprayers can be detrimental. Misting of plants, however, has beneficial effects, and even micronutrients can be absorbed this way through the leaves. Early in the morning, the stomata of the leaves are open under certain conditions, and this allows for uptake of water and nutrients. What is very interesting is that even music has an effect on the capacity of plants to absorb moisture and nutrients through their leaves, and soft classical music or the music of birds tends to enhance absorption. Is it possible that the beauty of nature has been so designed to create such superb harmony, and that in many instances we see only a fraction of the original perfection?

Parasites and venomous creatures: Some organisms can become dangerous by just being placed in different habitats to which they are not accustomed. Bacteria, for example, are very specific as to where they live in the gastro-intestinal tract and if they end up elsewhere they can wreak havoc by undergoing physiological changes which could induce them to produce harmful substances such as certain metabolites or proteins that can have negative effects, such as inducing diarrhea. (15) Here is a mechanism for the development of disease organisms. Originally, bacteria could all have had highly specific roles to play in assisting numerous processes in the body and in the environment, just as the myriads of useful bacteria still do today, and their original role could have been only beneficial. Moreover, changes in bacteria that are already out of their original habitat could be rapid and ongoing, since the mechanisms for gene modification through plasmid transfers were already in place.

The same could be said for all the organisms that eventually turned to parasitism. A changing environment with a drastically altered habitat could induce organisms to exploit new and different food sources and thus parasitism and carnivory could develop. Protozoa that assist in the nutrition of numerous animals could have been transformed into deadly pathogens and fungi that were to assist in the decomposition of plant debris (remember plants were created as food) could have parasitised living organisms. Parasitic worms show dramatic levels of degeneration of organs, and the tapeworm and numerous other species of parasitic worms have been transformed into little other than reproductive organisms. Sacculina, a parasite of crabs, has no digestive tract, but its larva is still a free-swimming nauplius larva. Instead of maturing into a normal barnacle, it is transformed into a mass of filaments in its crab host. The loss of organs is not necessarily the result of mutations, but could just be the result of deactivation of the gene systems that are not required under the new circumstances. There is no evidence here of evolution, only of devolution.

Insects too could have been modified to develop mechanisms of defense and means of parasitism. Mosquitoes use their syringe-like mouthparts to suck blood from a host, but the male of the species uses the same mouthparts to extract plant juices from plants. Is it possible that plant juice was no longer sufficient to provide the necessary energy that the female needs for the maturation of her eggs, and that the same apparatus that was used for sucking plant juices could be equally effectively employed to suck blood? The sting of a bee is nothing other than a modified ovipositor. The versatility of a bee�s genome is demonstrated by the fact that the type of food that is fed to the larvae will determine whether a bee will develop into a worker or a queen. If a queen should die, then workers can develop into queens if fed differently, and this obviously activates latent gene systems that enable the non-reproducing worker to be transformed into an egg-producing queen. The various secretions associated with oviposition could equally well have been transformed into the venom that is injected by a bee�s sting.

Venom, in general, is nothing other than modified normal secretions. The venom of poisonous fish is a product of the glands that normally produce protective slime to coat the fish, and the spines that deliver the venom are modified fin rays. The venom injected by snakes and spiders could be nothing more than modified digestive proteins. As to what constituted the original diet of spiders and other venomous creatures, that is a question open to speculation. There are spiders such as the orb-weaving spider that subsist on pollen that is captured in their nets (16) and it is quite possible that certain wind carried seeds could also have constituted part of the original diet.

Carnivores: Carnivores kill and eat other animals and in the case of carnivorous mammals, they are classified as such on the strength of their teeth. A carnivore is equipped with the necessary weapons to kill and catch other animals, but this equipment need not necessarily have been designed for that purpose. Yes, possessing the equipment pre-adapts an organism to become a carnivore but this need not have been its original disposition. Panda bears, for example, are classified as carnivores on the strength of their teeth, but they eat bamboo. The same type of teeth can kill and tear flesh, but as in the case of the Panda bear, that need not be what they were designed for. The same can be said for the whole family Ursidae, the bears, that subsist largely on a vegetarian diet eating mainly berries. It is true that they will eat fish if available and can be opportunist carnivores, but they are equally at home on the fields grazing alongside buffalo.

Carnivores are not only adapted for meat eating in terms of their teeth, but their intestines are also shorter than those of herbivores. It is very interesting that diet has an amazing effect on intestinal structure. Intestines have a tremendous capacity for growth, and if sections are removed during operations, some parts can regenerate and grow back to their original length. Carnivores have short intestines because meat does not contain fiber and a short intestine is thus advantageous so that the food does not remain trapped in the intestines for long periods of time. Also, the food of carnivores is high-energy food that is absorbed rapidly. Carnivores whose diets are changed to herbivorous diets adapt rapidly to these diets and subsist very well on them. Lions will also preferably eat the contents of the rumen of a kill first. The rumen contains fermented plant products, and there are numerous accounts of lions and other carnivores that were raised on plant diets such as grains and would not touch meat even if presented to them. Dogs and cats can also subsist very well on vegetarian diets and in fact live much longer and are less aggressive on such diets. The teeth of these animals that act as shears could equally well have been used to shred tough plants in the past, and the fact that they don�t do so now could simply be as a result of the destruction of their original food source. There is plenty of evidence in the palaeontological record that far greater varieties of plants existed in the past than exist today.

Destruction of habitat changes the diets of animals even in our day. Chipmunks traditionally eat seeds in the forests, but with acid rain leaving its mark, food sources are often becoming inadequate, and it is not unusual to see these cute herbivorous animals tearing away at road kills to augment their diets with meat. This is a case of a herbivore becoming a meat scavenger as a result of changing circumstances. Kea parrots in New Zealand ordinarily grub for roots, but dwindling food supplies will encourage them to attack sheep. They will use their sharp weapons, their beaks and claws, to tear open the backs of the sheep so that they can eat the fat around the kidneys. (17) This is an amazing transformation, and if their habitat and food source is restored, they will go back to calmly eating their roots. They have the same equipment as birds of prey (sharp talons and a powerful beak) but they use them for harmless purposes. How did they know that tearing open the backs of sheep would provide the type of food they could subsist on? That is a mystery, but lack of needs normally leads to aggression and this could be one of the reasons why they aggressively attack a creature that will or cannot defend itself. A further example of such change is found in the so-called Vampire Finches of the Galapagos Islands. These normally vegetarian birds have recently been shown to raid nests and suck blood from nesting booby birds,(18),(19) a change in diet induced by increasing competition for vegetarian re sources. The finches feed on these sea birds during extended periods of drought. They peck at the base of the feathers until the blood flows and then they sip it. Other finches queue up and resume the process when the previous finch is satisfied. This is a change in diet and behavior induced by negative environmental circumstances and did not require millions of years to develop.

Aggression is a trait that potentially exists in all creatures, but it need not have been there in the beginning. Out of the wild species from which the domestic dog has been bred, there have been developed incredibly docile, friendly and loving dogs of all shapes and sizes. But selective breeding can also produce the most vicious killers out of the same gene pool. Aggressive natures thus have a genetic basis and can be reduced rapidly through selection. The capacity to defend oneself need not ever be displayed if the need for defense should never arise. The Russian scientist Dmitry Belyaev and others who studied the process of domestication of foxes found that changes in behavior could be selected for rapidly. (20) Out of a variety of foxes, those that responded without fear to humans were selected and the fearful ones discarded, and by the sixth generation the foxes were displaying behavior patterns similar to domestic dogs, whimpering to attract attention and licking their keepers. This behavior increased to one pup in 6 by the tenth generation and to 3 pups in 4 by the 30th generation. The changes were accompanied by anatomical changes and by a reduction in adrenal hormone secretions (fight and flight hormones) and increases in serotonin levels. Serotonin is an important chemical (one of the monoamines that functions in neurotransmission, regulation of pain thresholds and modulation of vascular muscle tone) in brain function, and highly aggressive or schizophrenic people in mental institutions are known to have low serotonin levels and are treated to compensate for this condition. The development of aggression and fear of humans need thus not have developed over millions of years but could have come about very rapidly.

Transformation of animals into killing machines, seen from a creation perspective, is thus an adaptive condition which points to degeneration rather than evolutionary advance. In evolutionary thinking, the carnivorous condition is an advanced condition through which survival pressures are brought into the playing field, which in turn lead to evolutionary advance, through natural selection, in both the prey and the predator. In a sense, the constant battle for survival brings about strategy and counterstrategy, but any changes would still have to come about through mutations, which happen by chance, and this scenario is highly unlikely. Looking at it from the opposite perspective, carnivory is a sad consequence of the introduction of death and violence into the system. This point is perhaps well illustrated by the famous piranha, the fish renowned for its razor sharp teeth and its capacity to strip an animal to bone should it haplessly end up in the water. There is, however, evidence that the ancestors of the piranha were once plant eaters.

Many species of South American Pacu fish, which are closely related to the piranha, use their powerful jaws and strong teeth to eat aquatic plants and fruits that fall into the water. The two groups are morphologically very similar, and it is noteworthy that the piranha will also eat plant material. Young stages (just as in the case of many pelagic fishes) are largely plant feeders and genetically, much to the surprise of researchers, there is no clear distinction between the vicious piranha and the vegetarian species (21), with some species even merging. (22) It is interesting that the pacu species that is most like the piranha in appearance, Pygocentrus denticulate, lives on plant foods. Actually, piranhas are not as vicious as most believe, and they generally only clip off pieces of other creatures and don�t devour them entirely. It is conceivable that the same scenario as evident for the piranha could apply to all carnivorous fish including the sharks, which also have herbivorous cousins. The modifications of the feeding structures could thus be ascribed to modification or lack of genetic expression and can be considered secondary rather than primary.

by Professor Walter J. Veith Phd.