The Influence of Biogeography on Evolutionary Thought

Let’s Reevaluate Where We Are

It is not that evolution is not true. Of course evolution is true—I evolved when I had breakfast this morning. As evolutionists like to say, evolution is mere change over time. Thus the changing of gene frequencies is a favorite proof text for evolution. But by broadening the definition of evolution to include anything and everything aside from absolute stasis, the term becomes essentially meaningless and ripe for equivocation.

One of the scandals of evolutionary thought is that it actively trades on this equivocation. The result is a false dichotomy where the falsification of a silly foil—absolute stasis—is equated with the truth of evolution in the Darwinian sense. That is, that the biological world arose spontaneously. The biological world, and by extension everything else because evolutionary thought is by no means limited to biology, arose by itself as the chance outcome of the strictly blind interplay of natural law.

For instance, Isaac Asimov once wrote that mere color changes in the peppered moth prove evolution. How could such trivial change prove evolution? Of course it doesn’t—this is an equivocation on evolution.

Similarly Steve Jones wrote that the changes observed in HIV (the human immunodeficiency virus) contain Darwin’s “entire argument.” According to science writer Jonathan Weiner, the changes in the beaks of birds show us “Darwin’s process in action.”

Likewise Professor Marta Wayne tells us that “Evolution is change in gene frequency” and science writer Emily Willingham defines evolution as “a change in population over time.” Professor Pamela Bjorkman states that a mutating virus is “evolution at work” and that “In the same way, people have evolved, but over a much slower time scale.”

These are at best irresponsible mistakes. At worst they are simply lies. I’m not here to apologize for this conduct. However, as usual these lies do not arise out of nowhere. There is a history behind evolutionary thinking, and it helps to understand that Jones, Bjorkman and the rest are operating in a larger tradition that goes back for centuries. One of the strong influences on that tradition is biogeography. Here is a brief recounting of that influence, from evolutionist and science historian Frank Sulloway:

Darwin’s revolutionary theory was that new species arise naturally, by a process of evolution, rather than having been created—forever immutable—by God. According to the well-established creationist theory of Darwin’s day, the exquisite adaptations of many species—such as the hinges of the bivalve shell and the wings and plumes on seeds dispersed by air—were compelling evidence that a “designer” had created each species for its intended place in the economy of nature. Darwin had wholeheartedly accepted this theory, which was bolstered by the biblical account in Genesis, until his experiences in the Galápagos Islands began to undermine this way of thinking about the biological world.

[…]
Legend has it that Darwin was converted to the theory of evolution, eureka-like, during his visit to the islands. How could he not have been? In retrospect, the evidence for evolution seems so compelling. Darwin tells us in his Journal of Researches, first published in 1839, that his fascination with the “mystery of mysteries”—the origin of new species—was first aroused by a chance discussion on Floreana with Nicholas Lawson, the vice governor of the islands. Based in part on differences in the shape of a tortoise’s shell, Lawson claimed that “he could at once tell from which island any one was brought.” Darwin also noticed that the mockingbirds seemed to be either separate varieties or species on the four islands he visited. If true, he speculated, “such facts would undermine the stability of Species”—the fundamental tenet of creationism, which held that all species had been created in their present, immutable forms.

[…]
Gould’s taxonomic judgments finally caused Darwin to embrace the theory of evolution. Stunned by the realization that evolving varieties could break the supposedly fixed barrier that, according to creationism, prevents new species from forming, he quickly sought to rectify his previous collecting oversights by requesting island locality information from the carefully labeled collections of three Beagle shipmates. Two of these collections, by Captain FitzRoy and FitzRoy’s steward, Harry Fuller, contained 50 Galápagos birds, including more than 20 finches. Even Darwin’s servant, Covington, had done what Darwin had not, labeling by island his own personal collection of finches, which were later acquired by a private collector in England. The birth of the Darwinian revolution was a highly collaborative enterprise.

For Darwin, creationism was the dominant idea. And by creationism, as Sulloway explains, we mean the idea that the species were created forever immutable.

As Ernst Mayr has pointed out, “The fixed, essentialistic species was the fortress to be stormed and destroyed; once this had been accomplished, evolutionary thinking rushed through the breach like a flood through a break in a dike.”

Sulloway recounts Darwin’s famous journal entry that tiny variations between birds and tortoises from the different islands in the Galápagos Islands “undermine the stability of Species.”

That was an epiphany for Darwin. As Sulloway writes, Darwin was later “stunned” by the realization that evolving varieties could break the supposedly fixed barrier that, according to creationism, prevents new species from forming.

If there is anything that is stunning it is that a scientist could conclude that tiny changes between birds and tortoises would imply that the entire biological world must have spontaneously arisen by itself.

So strong is the influence of religious ideas.

There was no scientific evidence here for Darwin’s broad, sweeping conclusions about evolution. Darwin had no idea how those tiny differences could have arisen, much less how the entire biosphere could have been spontaneously generated. Yet that is what he claimed, on the basis of a one-dimensional, black-white, simplistic dichotomy.

Darwin was operating from an assumption that he knew all of the possible alternative explanations. And there were two: either the species were forever immutable, or they arose from blind chance. This is the problem of unconceived alternatives (see here and here for examples).

It is no different today. As exemplified above, evolutionists continue to operate from this false dichotomy. This is sad because today we understand far more about biology. Today we know what Darwin did not know, that from physiological changes taking place in less than a second to genetic adaptations spanning decades and multiple generations, the story of change in biology is far more exotic, creative and nuanced than anything Darwin imagined. The built-in capacity organisms have for directed, responsive change is profound. There is still more to the story we do not yet understand, but let’s move on from nineteenth century religious convictions.

When I Explained Darwin I Got Pushback about Biogeography

Full Queeg

I recently explained that Darwin, as well as evolution co-discoverer Alfred Wallace, came to believe in transmutation and so they then sought a suitable mechanism. That comes straight from leading Darwin historian Janet Browne. And why did Darwin and Wallace “believe in transmutation” in the absence of a known mechanism? Both Darwin and Wallace made it clear in their writings that their reasoning was metaphysical. The biological world did not meet with their creationist expectations. God would never have created this world and so evolution was the answer, even though they didn’t know how it could occur. Again, this is well recognized by historians. Darwin’s books, papers and notebook entries were chocked full of religious arguments.

This is the motivation and template for evolution and it has continued ever since Darwin. Evolution is not about science, it is about God. But evolutionists are in denial about this. They insist there is no religion here, right after making religious arguments. It is a fascinating study in denialism. You can see examples here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

So it is not surprising that an evolutionist gave me pushback when I wrote that Darwin and Wallace were driven by metaphysics:

This is, basically, crap. If anything, it was biogeographical observation that led Darwin to evolution:

In fact, not only did Darwin’s arguments for evolution hinge on religious premises, that includes his biogeographical arguments. Evolutionists are ahistorical. They imagine their mandate for a spontaneous origins is a scientific finding. Let’s look at some examples.

The Swedish botanist Carl Von Linne, or Linnaeus (1707-1778), was one of the greatest naturalists of the eighteenth century. He is most famous for the universally-accepted hierarchical method of classification that today bears his name. But Linnaeus’ popularity and influence spread beyond just classification. One of his most famous and influential beliefs was that of the fixity, or stability, of species. His proclamation Nullae Species Novae—no new species—idealized species as perfect forms created by the wise Creator.

Linnaeus was later troubled when he discovered hybrids—species that are produced by the crossing of two related species—and he later softened his doctrine of the stability of species. But this was inconsequential—his system with its conception of species became deeply rooted and the nineteenth century began with the notion of species as immutable still strongly in place.

But in his travels around the world in the 1830s, Darwin saw species on various islands that did not quite match the species on the nearby mainland. It was practically an epiphany for Darwin when he began to consider that the different types of finches he saw on the Galápagos Islands might not simply be variants of a species, but instead might actually be different species. If there was the slightest foundation for this idea, Darwin wrote in his famous notebook entry, it “would undermine the stability of species.”

The finches did not suddenly reveal to Darwin how fish could change to amphibia, or how amphibia could change to reptiles, or how reptiles could change to mammals. Rather, the revelation was that the idea of creation was suddenly becoming untenable. The crucible for Darwin was not full of positive evidence for evolution but rather negative evidence against creation. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr has pointed out that Darwin’s conversion from creationist to materialist was not due to a loss of religious faith but rather initially due to three key scientific findings and then later reinforced by several additional findings. And what were these scientific findings? They were all findings against creation. In other words, the key evidence that swayed Darwin was not direct evidence for evolution but rather evidence against creation that indirectly argued for evolution. And as Mayr further points out, the doctrine of fixity of species was a key barrier to overcome in order for evolution to flourish:

Darwin called his great work On the Origin of Species, for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution. The fixed, essentialistic species was the fortress to be stormed and destroyed; once this had been accomplished, evolutionary thinking rushed through the breach like a flood through a break in a dike.

The preDarwinian metaphysic was that species were fixed and essentialistic. Evidence for small-scale change argued against the old view and in so doing became important evidence for evolution.

This is one example of how Darwin interpreted the biogeographical evidence according to religious premises. These arguments became even stronger when the evidence did not merely fail to align with religious expectations, but rather made no sense on the theory of creation. These are much more powerful arguments for evolution and are evident in Darwin’s earliest notes and writings on evolution. For instance, in 1842 and 1844, almost two decades before publication of Origins, Darwin wrote two lengthy essays on his emerging theory. These eventually were published by his son Francis in 1909 in a book entitled The Foundations of The Origin of Species.

In the 1844 essay Darwin discussed the biogeography evidence. Darwin argued that certain species existed over narrow geographical ranges, and that there was “no reason” for this “On the ordinary theory of the separate creation of each species.” Also, Pacific islands closer to the Americas had plants with more of an “Asiatic character.” That too was “not obvious on the ordinary theory of creation.” Or again, the same species of plants had been found on immensely remote mountain summits, but:

we ought to be very slow in admitting the probability of double creations. In the case of plants on mountain summits, I think I have shown how almost necessarily they would, under the past conditions of the northern hemisphere, be as similar as are the plants on the present Arctic shores; and this ought to teach us a lesson of caution. But the strongest argument against double creations may be drawn from considering the case of mammifers in which, from their nature and from the size of their offspring, the means of distribution are more in view. … On the idea of double creations it would be strange if the same species of several plants should have been created in Australia and Europe; and no one instance of the same species of mammifer having been created, or aboriginally existing, in two as nearly remote and equally isolated points.

Then there was the problem of plant diversity, or lack thereof, on islands:

Why on the theory of absolute creations should this large and diversified island only have from 400 to 500 (? Dieffenbach) phanerogamic plants? and why should the Cape of Good Hope, characterised by the uniformity of its scenery, swarm with more species of plants than probably any other quarter of the world? Why on the ordinary theory should the Galapagos Islands abound with terrestrial reptiles? and why should many equal-sized islands in the Pacific be without a single one or with only one or two species? Why should the great island of New Zealand be without one mammiferous quadruped except the mouse, and that was probably introduced with the aborigines? Why should not one island (it can be shown, I think, that the mammifers of Mauritius and St Iago have all been introduced) in the open ocean possess a mammiferous quadruped? Let it not be said that quadrupeds cannot live in islands, for we know that cattle, horses and pigs during a long period have run wild in the West Indian and Falkland Islands; pigs at St Helena; goats at Tahiti; asses in the Canary Islands; dogs in Cuba; cats at Ascension; rabbits at Madeira and the Falklands; monkeys at St Iago and the Mauritius; even elephants during a long time in one of the very small Sooloo Islands; and European mice on very many of the smallest islands far from the habitations of man2. Nor let it be assumed that quadrupeds are more slowly created and hence that the oceanic islands, which generally are of volcanic formation, are of too recent origin to possess them; for we know (Lyell) that new forms of quadrupeds succeed each other quicker than Mollusca or Reptilia. Nor let it be assumed (though such an assumption would be no explanation) that quadrupeds cannot be created on small islands; for islands not lying in mid-ocean do possess their peculiar quadrupeds

Finally, Darwin went “full-Queeg” with this extended rant:

Shall we then allow that the three distinct species of rhinoceros which separately inhabit Java and Sumatra and the neighbouring mainland of Malacca were created, male and female, out of the inorganic materials of these countries? Without any adequate cause, as far as our reason serves, shall we say that they were merely, from living near each other, created very like each other, so as to form a section of the genus dissimilar from the African section, some of the species of which section inhabit very similar and some very dissimilar stations? Shall we say that without any apparent cause they were created on the same generic type with the ancient woolly rhinoceros of Siberia and of the other species which formerly inhabited the same main division of the world: that they were created, less and less closely related, but still with interbranching affinities, with all the other living and extinct mammalia? That without any apparant adequate cause their short necks should contain the same number of vertebræ with the giraffe; that their thick legs should be built on the same plan with those of the antelope, of the mouse, of the hand of the monkey, of the wing of the bat, and of the fin of the porpoise. That in each of these species the second bone of their leg should show clear traces of two bones having been soldered and united into one; that the complicated bones of their head should become intelligible on the supposition of their having been formed of three expanded vertebræ; that in the jaws of each when dissected young there should exist small teeth which never come to the surface. That in possessing these useless abortive teeth, and in other characters, these three rhinoceroses in their embryonic state should much more closely resemble other mammalia than they do when mature. And lastly, that in a still earlier period of life, their arteries should run and branch as in a fish, to carry the blood to gills which do not exist. Now these three species of rhinoceros closely resemble each other; more closely than many generally acknowledged races of our domestic animals; these three species if domesticated would almost certainly vary, and races adapted to different ends might be selected out of such variations. In this state they would probably breed together, and their offspring would possibly be quite, and probably in some degree, fertile; and in either case, by continued crossing, one of these specific forms might be absorbed and lost in another. I repeat, shall we then say that a pair, or a gravid female, of each of these three species of rhinoceros, were separately created with deceptive appearances of true relationship, with the stamp of inutility on some parts, and of conversion in other parts, out of the inorganic elements of Java, Sumatra and Malacca? or have they descended, like our domestic races, from the same parent-stock? For my own part I could no more admit the former proposition than I could admit that the planets move in their courses, and that a stone falls to the ground, not through the intervention of the secondary and appointed law of gravity, but from the direct volition of the Creator.

Evolution is motivated by the perceived failures of creation. Darwin had no idea how the species could evolve, and neither do evolutionists today. But this is man’s assessment of creation. Evolution must be true. There is nothing wrong with religious arguments and beliefs. But let’s not confuse it with science.

Is This What Jeff Schloss Said at That NYC Meeting Last Week?

This is troubling to watch. Maybe it’s because the misrepresentations are in a living color video rather than the usual black-and-white text. Maybe it’s because Schloss is so well-spoken. Maybe it’s because it is a friend doing the misrepresenting. Maybe it is because it was probably something like this that Schloss presented last week in NYC, which Christianity Today referred to as “elegant” and what no doubt so impressed the largely non scientific crowd, save NT Wright hopefully. At the [0.34] mark the Professor and Chair of Biology at Westmont College explains:

Evolution in the sense of whether that genetic change over time has resulted in the diversity of species, we see now, which is the proposition of common descent, that is an idea. That is an interpretation. But the evidence for the truth of that interpretation is overwhelming. And it ranges from biogeographic evidence, or where the species are located all over Earth, to the fossil column, to more recently the discovery of profound examples of genetic fossils. So that idea is very firmly established. And it is central to our understanding of how organisms work and how they are structured. 

This is the middle of three meanings or senses of the word “evolution” that Schloss explains. He begins with genetic change over time which, Schloss explains, is simply an empirical fact. Then, at the [0.34] mark, he moves on to the idea that this genetic change over time is the cause of the diversity of species. And finally, Schloss moves on to the explanations for what caused this genetic change over time which, Schloss explains, is largely mutations plus natural selection, but that a range of other factors currently under study were probably at work as well.

What Schloss does not explain in this video is that in recent decades evolutionists have increasingly acknowledged that the vast change evolution requires did not, in fact, likely arise from the usual suspects of mutation, selection and adaptation. This is not a minor point of dispute. It is a fundamental problem of how new designs arose.

As for common descent, again, this has increasingly been questioned even by evolutionists. Why? Because the evidence does not fit the model very well. What is needed are vast amounts of lateral or horizontal evolution, to fill the gaps in the vertical (common descent) model. So evolutionists have increasingly and more liberally dipped into the soup of horizontal gene transfer as a way of making sense of the evidence from an evolutionary perspective.

This horizontal gene transfer explanation is problematic. First, it is a complex mechanism that evolution would somehow had to have created. Second, it means that evolution created a complex mechanism so that evolution could occur—evolution created evolution. Third, evolutionists need to use the mechanism to a far greater degree than is realistic. You can read more about this here, here and here.

In fact common descent’s model of an evolutionary “tree” has also been increasingly questioned by evolutionists. As one evolutionist explained, “incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree,” and another explained that:

Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL [tree of life] rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true.

You can read more about this here.

In fact there are monumental problems with common descent. For instance, identical DNA sequences show up in distant species with little functional constraint (something that an evolutionist once told me would falsify the entire theory).

Likewise, strikingly similar, incredibly complex, designs show up on distant twigs of the tree. For example, the human and squid vision system are uncannily similar. This cannot be explained as arising from a common ancestor. Nor is this is a rare or uncommon finding in biology. Such contradictions to evolutionary expectations seem to be never-ending in biology.

On the other hand, otherwise very similar species (which evolution would assign as neighbors on the evolutionary tree) have big differences. From completely different development patterns to completely unique, different genes, these differences make no sense on common descent and evolution.

The list goes on and on. Evolutionists have imposed a model on the evidence which does not fit very well. Only by ignoring these problems or describing them as evolutionary “noise” can the models work.

And what about Schloss’ evidences? Do evidences such as biogeography, the fossils and genetic comparisons make the case for common descent? These are all circumstantial evidences. Biogeography tells us what species were located where and when. It doesn’t tell us how those species got there.

These evidences are often consistent with evolutionary expectations, so that is a plus. But evolutionary expectations are incredibly broad. A great many patterns would work. So the confirmed prediction is not particularly strong. We could say the sunrise is a confirmed prediction of geocentrism, but a great many different sunrises would be.

Indeed, there are some evidences from biogeography that do not work very well and are, as evolutionist Ernst Mayr once put it in his book What Evolution Is, “indeed almost unbelievable.” He called one example of lizard dispersal “truly miraculous.”

And in his book Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution Douglas Futuyma wrote that “The molelike and wolflike animals of Australia are marsupials, clearly related to each other, because only marsupial ancestors had reached Australia.” Once again, forcing the evidence into the evolution paradigm failed as a few years later placental fossil species were discovered in Australia.

Similarly the fossil record tells us what species were there, but not how they got there. And here there are a great many problems. More advanced versions sometimes appear earlier in the record, other organisms appear abruptly, and in general the findings do not form the expected tree pattern. Instead, evolutionists switch to a “bush” metaphor which has a great many twigs going in all directions. And the fossil record reveals a series of diversity explosions followed by extinctions that winnow out the diversity—precisely the reverse of the original evolutionary expectations.

The genetic fossils Schloss mentions are better evidence. But of course, these are the evidences we understand the least. And there are occasional problems here as well, where these “fossils” are found in patterns that violate common descent. These circumstantial evidences could be explained by common mechanism as much as by common descent. Granted we do not know what that mechanism is, but we also do not know what mechanism could evolve the species.

It is not that there is no evidence for evolution and common descent. There is quite a bit of evidence. But there also is quite a bit of evidence for geocentrism, and a host of other rejected theories. It is crucial to take the entire scientific record into account rather than picking and choosing our favorite items as though we were in a cafeteria.

It seems to me that there simply are no easy scientific answers available at this point. I certainly do not have any. But there is no question that evolution and common descent are not scientific facts, as evolutionists insist. When such claims are made, that cannot be justified on the empirical evidence, it is an indicator that there is more than mere science at work.

It is crucial for scientists, who hold specialized knowledge and who are asked to explain what we know to non technical audiences, not to violate that public trust. When Schloss explains that the evidence for the truth of common descent “is overwhelming,” I do not think he is providing a balanced, objective explanation of the science.

Unfortunately, this is the history of evolutionary thought. For centuries religion has held sway and mandated an evolutionary narrative. The metaphysical certainty that Schloss so confidently asserts goes back centuries. That certainty did not come from genetic “fossils,” the fossil record, biogeography, or any other scientific evidence. It came from theological convictions imposed on the science.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

Special Creation False: Your Tax Dollars at Work

Over at the National Science Foundation, where your tax dollars go to promoting Darwin's religious theory, evolutionist Jim Secord asks the question "Where did Charles Darwin become convinced of the truth of evolution?" That's a good way of putting it because Darwin and evolutionists ever since have indeed been convinced that evolution is true. It is, as they like to say, a fact every bit as much as gravity is a fact. That's quite a claim. You would think they might say it is a fact as much as are Alexander the Great's conquests or some other historical record. That would still be a misrepresentation of the scientific evidence, but it would not be as blatant. The comparison with gravity is downright ludicrous, and precisely for this reason it is a tipoff that evolution is not the product of empirical science. Experimental measurements and hypothesis testing do not produce metaphysical certainty.

As Secord explains, Darwin's observations led not to scientific conclusions but religious concerns:

The different varieties of tortoises and mockingbirds provided powerful evidence of the relations between the Galapagos fauna and that of nearby South America. In geographical space, as in geologic time, closely allied species emerged successively and in order, just as they did in the fossil record. These relations, which impressed Darwin throughout the voyage, suggested that species were not specially created.

Let's see now, where's that verse in Genesis about birds on islands being completely different than those on the nearest mainland? Oh well, in any case Darwin argued powerfully that special creation must be false. The evidence for evolution was weak at best, but it had to be true. Religion drives science and it matters.

A Sermon by Jerry Coyne on Biogeography

It is remarkable that people pay evolutionist Jerry Coyne to indoctrinate their children according to his dogmatic religious beliefs. But they do, and he does. And the University of Chicago biology professor has now enshrined evolution’s theological convictions in his new book, Why Evolution is True, for all to see. Here is one example:

And this leads to another prediction that we made in chapter 1. If evolution happened, species living in one area should be the descendants of earlier species that lived in the same place. So if we dig into shallow layers of rocks in a given area, we should find fossils that resemble the organisms treading that ground today.

And this is also the case. Where can we dig up fossil kangaroos that most closely resemble living kangaroos? In Australia. Then there are the armadillos of the New World. Armadillos are unique among mammals in having a carapace of bony armor—armadillo in Spanish means “little armored one.” They live only in North, Central, and South America. Where do we find fossils resembling them? In the Americas, the home of the glyptodonts, armored plant-eating mammals that look just like overgrown armadillos. Some of these ancient armadillos were the size of Volkswagen Beetles, weighed a ton, were covered with two-inch-thick armor, and sported spiky balls on tails wielded like a mace. Creationism is hard-pressed to explain these patterns: to do so, it would have to propose that there were an endless number of successive extinctions and creations all over the world, and that each set of newly created species were made to resemble older ones that lived in the same place. We’ve come a long way from Noah’s Ark. [96]

Elliott Sober would be proud to see this variation on what he refers to as Darwin’s Principle in action. Coyne’s argument is not that the evidence of biogeography makes evolution compelling. In fact, it doesn’t. As we’ll see below, there are all kinds of problems and if Coyne really believed the prediction he gives above was falsifiable, then he would be forced to deal with a falsified prediction.

But evidential problems don’t matter when the only alternative is ruled out. As Sober explains, the important evolutionary point here is not that the probability of the evidence on evolution is high, but rather that the probability of the evidence on creation is low—real low.

This makes evolution the obvious conclusion in the minds of evolutionists. But of course, as Coyne so powerfully declares above, the conclusion follows from theological conviction. And powerful conclusions, such as Coyne’s triumphant one above, are made so by virtue of the powerful theology underwriting them. The greater the certainty of evolutionists, the greater their underlying religious conviction.

Coyne’s religious conviction are, of course, nothing new. This is standard evolutionary theology. From an empirical perspective, the data are all over the map, so to speak. And for all the various observations there is a battery of just-so stories to explain what we observe.

When similar designs are found in different locations around the world, then perhaps this discontinuity was caused by a partial extinction within a previously larger range. On the other hand, perhaps the discontinuity was caused by a dispersal event.

When new world monkeys were found to be similar to their old world cousins, it was hypothesized that African monkeys crossed the ocean on rafts. Or again, lizards somehow floated across thousands of miles of ocean from the Americas to islands in the Pacific.

Are the fauna similar between two different continents? Then that is because those continents were once joined, but have since drifted apart. What if the fauna are different between the continents? Then that is because those continents must have drifted apart farther back in time.

The stories are at times, as evolutionist Ernst Mayr once put it, “indeed almost unbelievable.” In his book Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution Douglas Futuyma wrote that “The molelike and wolflike animals of Australia are marsupials, clearly related to each other, because only marsupial ancestors had reached Australia.” Once again, forcing the evidence into the evolution paradigm failed as a few years later placental fossil species were discovered in Australia.

Alec Panchen agreed that building an argument for evolution from biogeography is not easy, and when he tried it was religion that supplied the key premise. “It is improbable,” explained Panchen, “that the distribution of organisms can be explained by the separate creation of species [because] ecological adaptation in any environment is demonstrably imperfect.” This sort of theological reasoning is standard within evolution and it leads to the conclusion that evolution must be a fact.

Like all evidences, the biogeographical data are subjected to a theological evaluation by the evolutionist. As Mayr concluded in his book What Evolution Is, “For a creationist there is no rational explanation for distributional irregularities.”

Likewise for Michael Ruse, God cannot be reconciled with the facts of biogeography so we must turn to evolution. In his book Darwinism Defended he wrote that “given an all-wise God, just why is it that different forms appear in similar climates, whereas the same forms appear in different climates? It is all pointless without evolution.”

According to the evolutionary textbook Evolution: Process and Product by Dodson and Dodson, if God had created the species then they should be distributed uniformly about the globe. The text states: “Had all species been created in the places where they now exist, then Amphibian and terrestrial mammals should be as frequent on oceanic islands as on comparable continental areas. Certainly, terrestrial mammals should have been created on these islands as frequently as were bats.”

Futuyma explains that there are “peculiar regularities to the ways in which animals and plants were distributed throughout the world that could only be viewed as capricious if they were the handiwork of a Creator.” Likewise Tim Berra explains that “if special creation were really how things came to be, there would be no reason for species on volcanic islands to resemble the inhabitants of the nearest land mass.”

This is evolution—a genre rich in religious pronouncement. The priesthood still enjoys secure, lifelong appointments from which to make theological pronouncements. But these days it wears a white lab coat.