BBC2's Horizon programme on February 1st, 2001: "The Missing Link".
The programme aimed to update viewers with what is known about the origin of the first tetrapod animals. According to conventional wisdom, ancestral fish developed feet and moved out of the sea to conquer the land. The transition, from lobe-finned fish (an ancestral form closely related to the modern Coelacanth) to tetrapod amphibian (which for a long time was identified as Ichtheostega), has been a major mystery in evolutionary thinking. The programme makers had sensed that a major leap forward in understanding has taken place in recent years.
The programme was informative in the way it drew attention to several problems with past Darwinian treatment of the data. We were told that:
(a) The researcher (Jarvick) who worked with the original Ichtheostega fossils was over-possessive and his written reports were designed to establish his own authority to speak of the fossils and their significance. Later research (using independently sourced material) came to radically different conclusions: the animals lived in water and not on the land.
(b) The scholar (Smith) who described the first specimen of a living Coelacanth proclaimed (unwisely) that this fish is a transitional form and, without any supporting evidence (and wrongly), that it could walk on the sea floor.
(c) Darwinists have constructed a "story" about fish conquering the land and, as a consequence, bony fins evolved into legs. Adaptationist stories have been treated with great suspicion by many mainstream scientists, who have regarded them as being outside of science.
However, the programme was not designed as a critique of the way Darwinists pursue research. The programme needlessly perpetuated the tired picture of a controversy between "creationists" and "science". The Narrator presented it with these words: "The contest between the creationists and science is being played out for the very highest stakes". Viewers were given a positivist presentation of scientific "progress" and the "creationism vs science" angle was pushed. Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research was interviewed on the lack of evidence for transitional forms in the fossil record, but there was no direct reference to the fish-amphibian transition.
It could be argued that creationists ought to have received a much more positive press. After all, up until 1999, the creationist objections to the Darwinian account of tetrapod evolution were acknowledged to be valid. Before this time, the more objective researchers had concluded that the fossils were either clearly fish or clearly amphibian. However, the programme showed an unacceptable bias in saying that the elusive transitional forms were still missing and that there was "nothing to silence the creationists". (In 1999, Per Ahlberg, the leading researcher featured in the programme, published his findings on a Latvian fossil jaw bone - but more on that later). We should not need to say to the BBC that in science (whether historical or empirical), the objective is not to silence those who interpret the data differently, but it is to seek a rational, coherent and testable understanding of the data.
The reality of the problem facing Darwinians was sensed by Stephen Pile in The Daily Telegraph (3 February 2001, page A12). "As so often, Horizon's problem was that there was not actually much of a story. How do you illustrate the complete absence of fossils for 50 minutes?" The Latvian fish bone was not the clincher that the programme makers would have liked. The single jaw bone contrasted vividly with the fossilised limbs of Ichtheostega and Acanthostega, and the bony finds of the alleged ancestral fish. Stephen Pile: "How was Horizon to turn this into the sort of heart-stopping tale with which they like to regale us? It was quite a struggle. They described one deputy director of vertebrates as 'an avenging angel' and showed her travelling by motorbike in black leathers". It could be added also that the musical background was selected to create a sense of triumphant achievement and to give viewers the "feel" that a glorious resolution had been achieved.
So, what of the Latvian fish bone? It has some features that can be viewed as transitional. The primary advocate for the "missing link" identity is Per Ahlberg, who found the fossil in a museum drawer. He is hardly an impartial researcher. His comment on creationism was: "What will happen if they won, if they truly won, is that we would descend into another dark age. It is an unimaginably dark prospect". Not a shred of evidence was presented to support this allegation. No creationist was interviewed to respond directly to the smear. People with Ahlberg's views desperately need a transitional fossil to sustain their position. History shows that a series of proposed candidates, but none of them have stood up to critical scrutiny. Why should we think that the Latvian jaw bone will be different? Without access to the critical parts of the skeleton, saying that it is "the missing link" is premature. At best, it is a possible candidate. Until more complete fossil material is found, there is little more to be said.
The presenter, at the end of the programme, told us that the emergence of these tetrapods on to the land was "not preordained - but chance". This is a theological statement and deals with a subject that science cannot address. The comment is of enormous significance: like the tip of an iceberg, these few words reveal much about the mind-set that underpins them. Much of science today is undertaken with the premise of philosophical naturalism (materialism, or "nature is all there is"). If this way of thinking is part of the premises of rational thought, it cannot help but surface later in the conclusions. It is true that many prominent scientists say similar things, but they do so, not because of the science, but because of their commitment to materialism. The confusion is plaguing contemporary attempts to define science. The programme makers had simply absorbed this philosophical stance and had not even asked whether it is relevant to understanding the controversy. By avoiding serious discussion with creationists, the Horizon programme team perpetuated mistaken views on the nature of science and failed to serve the best interests of the viewing public.
The BBC did not achieve its stated broadcasting goals in this programme. I wrote to the BBC about the problems, making the points above. I received a letter back from Fraser Steel, Head of Programme Complaints, who said he had discussed the issues with the producer of the programme, Matthew Barrett. The letter concluded: "I do not feel able to uphold your complaint".
My comment that the commentator showed bias in saying "there was nothing to silence the creationists" was rejected because "it seems to me to show recognition of the strength of this point in the creationist case". Per Ahlberg's claim that if the creationists won the debate, science would be "put back into the Dark Ages" was regarded as "the legitimate opinion of a contemporary palaeontologist". My comment that it was premature to hail the Latvian bone as transitional was countered thus: "Matthew Barratt points out that until its discovery (with intermediate features which clearly linked fish and tetrapod-like creatures) such a connection had been absent, so it seemed fair enough to call it "the missing link"". My objections to assertion of "chance" were nor really understood, but received this response. "I accept that the commentary statement was presented without qualification, but I felt it was doing no more than expressing an hypothesis in clear terms in a context where it was self-evident (from the fact that it concerned events of 400 million years ago) that it was just that".
These responses suggest that we have a long way to go still to communicate our understanding of the way evolutionary science is being conducted. We need also to show that we are committed to healthy science. Perhaps we need to make more of the fact that many of us are professional people with higher degrees in science. If there is a contest, it is not between creationists and science, but between creation-oriented science and an aberration of science that is really the outworking of philosophical naturalism.
David J. Tyler
(May 2001)
