A Low Bar is Set When it Comes to Evidence for Naturalism

I was reading this article the other day, which purported to be about new evidence concerning the evolutionary origin of hoofed mammals. I believe the text of early Genesis portrays a more complex relationship between creationism and evolution than most on either side are at this point willing to acknowledge. Therefore, what I write isn't written from any position you are likely to have heard on the issue. These issues are real, and we should all approach them honestly if we want to make real progress. 

In this case, the issue that the researchers were hoping to make progress on is well-described by this quote from the article:

"The modern orders artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates), perissodactyla, and primates appeared abruptly at the beginning of the Eocene around 56 million years ago across the Northern Hemisphere, but their geographic source has remained a mystery," explained Ken Rose, emeritus professor at Johns Hopkins University and lead author of the study.

So the problem is that three new orders of mammals make an abrupt and mysterious appearance across the Northern Hemisphere around 56 million years ago. I am sure my evolutionary friends will just chalk this up to the "niches opened up by the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs", but scientists in the field are not as convinced as the armchair-professors. Indeed it seems to me that reptiles pretty much quit "evolving" and mammals did not, which makes sense in the context of changes coming based on what an Intelligent Designer was willing to continue tweaking but not in the context of blind nature driving all changes, even ones large enough to produce new orders. 

To address part of this question, the researchers proposed that one of the groups (perissodactyla) which abruptly and mysteriously showed up across the northern hemisphere 56 million years ago got its start in the Indian sub-continent, and only spread to the rest of the world once the Indian land mass collided with Asia. The idea was that they were "hiding out" and developing there, and that is why they seem to appear so abruptly.

They did their searching and what they found, and offer as evidence to support their hypothesis, was some 55 million year-old fossils of a beast called Cambaytherium. To their credit, they don't even claim that this critter was a perissodactyl or even basal to them, but a cousin to them with basal features.

Why does finding a cousin to the perissodactyls on the Indian sub-continent from 55 million years ago explain the sudden emergence across the northern hemisphere of the group 56 million years ago? All that can be said is that a similar animal was also on the subcontinent- a mystery in itself.

It is amazing what passes for "evidence" these days when it is offered in support of a naturalistic paradigm. I have been assured by my naturalist friends for example, that a phyla is simply a species that has had half a billion years to evolve into many other things. This however, is a faith-based statement. It assumes naturalism is true, that it is the total explanation for all that we see. The evidence suggests that in the oceans the phyla rose much more rapidly than this, and there were few species within each for millions of years until all of them at basically the same time started spitting out new orders. 

I still think a phyla is "a basic body plan" and so far the censors haven't changed that definition yet! I also think that if nature were left alone, a species with a half a billion years to work with would, instead of becoming a new phyla, produce a series of species or genera in a relatively narrow range. Nature alone can generate change, but I see no natural mechanism that can come close to the rate of change we see at certain key points in earth's history, nor does the change we see at these points come in the pattern one might expect of Nature.

This topic is one of the least important I write about in "Early Genesis, the Revealed Cosmology". Rather, the book is mostly a proof for the existence of Christ as God via showing how He is pointed to even in the very earliest parts of the text. Reconciling the text to what He said it was about (Him) also largely reconciles it to evidence from history and the natural universe. This is a vanishingly unlikely scenario except in the case that He really is who scripture says that He is and those scriptures are indeed inspired by God. 

Below is a link to the book, which is available in E-book version for no charge to those with access to a Kindle Unlimited Account. A link to the YOU TUBE channel is also given, and of course this blog is dedicated to issues related to the Christ-centered model. 

You Tube Channel