Are Species Created with Hidden Information Pre-adapted for Future Environments?

How did the incredible species diversity today manifest itself from just a few individual animals preserved on Noah’s Ark? How much speciation has happened? What are the mechanisms for young-earth speciation? Is there evidence that rapid speciation has occurred in just the past few thousand years? These are enduring questions that young-earth creationists have been wrestling with for 50 years. Here we look at one YECs proposal for the origin of present-day species diversity.

In the video linked below I read through and comment on a short article posted on the “New Creation” blog sponsored by Is Genesis History and authored by paleontologist Dr. Kurt Wise. While a stalwart young-earth believer, Dr. Wise is not afraid to think outside the typical young-earth box as exemplified by the standard model of young-earth creation science promoted by the “traditional” young-earth ministries such as Answers in Genesis. In this article, Dr. Wise is making his case that the rapid and remarkable ability of organisms to adapt to their current environment is the result of God’s hiding adaptive instruction sets inside His originally created kinds about 6000 years ago.

These hidden instruction sets managed to pass through–by some as yet defined mechanism–the creationist’ population bottleneck otherwise known as Noah’s Flood. Having survived the flood those organisms were fruitful and filled the new ecological environments in the new world as they rapidly–again by some unknown mechanism which is not just natural selection–make use of what was previously hidden variation (information?) since the creation but now manifests itself as what we might call novel adaptive traits.

Where is the information for these hidden traits (one could say, hidden species) stored in previously existing species or possibly even inside species today ready to be used to adapt into future species via that additional hidden variation? Is it to be found in the genomes (DNA sequences) of “kinds” as pieces of currently unused DNA code that is being preserved for future use? Or is the information coded in other molecules such as proteins or something else that we haven’t fully appreciated to this point? Dr. Wise infers that such hidden and as yet undiscovered information MUST exist (I look at some of the reasons he believes this to be so in the video) but admits that at this point: “Biologists still do not know where or how the variety was hidden, nor do they know how that variety was revealed.” This is an honest as well as rather stunning admission. It’s an admission the creation model can’t currently explain how biological diversity is encoded nor how it has manifested itself since the Flood but Dr. Wise is sure that such hidden information exists and we will eventually discover the processes by which that information is utilized.

I suggest that without any mechanism an appeal to “hidden variation” as an explanation for how rapid speciation could lead to filling the earth with millions of species not observed in the past, amounts to nothing more than a magic wand explanation for the present amount of species diversity. Hidden variation could be used to explain any scenario for the apparent evolution of species.

For example, a young-earth creationists could propose that whales were originally created with feet and walked off the ark. God knowing that there would be a vast ecosystem with few large animals hid variation within this walking land animal which was turned on – by an as yet discovered mechanism – and the animals expressed featured allowing it to be successful in the ocean. The feet were then allowed to experience genetic entropy (mutation buildup) thus eliminating the legs and feet because they were not longer needed. Because we don’t know how yet to identify where this hidden information is and how it will be expressed, no young-earth creationist would be able to argue that this scenario must be in error.

Appeals to “hidden” variation are yet another in a long line of speculative hypotheses that YECs have proposed in hopes of finding a post-creation process to explain the vast array of biological diversity that is so well adapted to the state of the present world.

8 thoughts on “Are Species Created with Hidden Information Pre-adapted for Future Environments?

    1. Looks like you need to send that link to Kurt Wise since he is the one saying we don’t know where this hidden genetic information is stored.


  1. Years ago I was hopeful that Wise, as a seemingly honest paleontologist, would eventually face the massive evidence from geology and paleontology for evolution and an old Earth, but alas, I no longer hold out such hope. Even if we set aside the major problems of the alleged “hidden” genetic info and severe genetic bottleneck at the time of the Flood, he still has an astoundingly tiny time frame he has to work with, and huge problems with fossil succession, radiometric dating, and other compelling lines of evidence against YECism. Oddly, he often admits that in many ways the earth appears old, and has acknowledged at times that he believes in YECism mainly for religious reasons (a commitment to a literal Genesis) rather than scientific ones. I just don’t get how he can cling so tightly hold onto a view that conflicts with so much, especially since there are (as many Christian scholars show) very reasonable non-literal ways to view Genesis. Besides, the Bible never states the age of the earth, and we know the geneaologies conflict and have multiple gaps of unknown length. Surely he must also be aware of the epic failure of ICR’s Rate Project, where the authors admitted that there was far too much radio decay recorded in the earths rocks to fit a YE model, promoting them to invoke multiple ad-hoc miracles. To me this is little different than suggesting God place fossils directly in rocks (which by the way, a few YECs like Robert Gentry still do, and which Robert Gentry (famous for his radio halos) did until his dying day (a couple years ago). Wise likes to tell the story about how he realized in his youth that in order to make the Bible fit conventional geology, he’d have to rip out many of the pages. First, many would say no, just stop viewing them in such a narrow and rigid way. Second, by the same reasoning why is it OK to essentially tear up or disregard millions of pages of scientific research (which one can view as helping reveal another form of revelation from God–from creation), even when the research comes from fellow Christians. All this said, I don’t mean to bash Wise. I’ve met him a couple times and think he is one of the more honest and sincere YECs; just one who needs to open his mind more to non-YEC views, and free himself from what must be an exhausting level of cognitive dissonance.


  2. Even if he can’t identity the source, he could try to align the proposed behavior of that source like Glen just did with the whale. Then find where the source acted. So much YEC skipping over figuring out when natural takes over from hand of God.


  3. There is another problem with YEC, a theological problem. Jesus said, “If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me.” John 10. He was acknowledging the God-given role of physical facts to distinguish between true and false prophetic claims (Deuteronomy 18) and subjecting his teaching to the same test. A similar appreciation for physical facts led Peter in Acts 2 and Paul in Acts 13 to interpret the meaning of Psalm 16 based on physical reality. Literally the Psalm claims that David will not undergo corruption. But both apostles pointed out that David died, was buried and his tomb remained unopened. That settled the issue: the Psalm had to be taken in a figurative sense, referring not to David but to one of his descendants. Scripture knows nothing of physical reality needing a biblical re-interpretation to get its real meaning. The reverse is true. Physical facts can judge all prophetic claims; they can demonstrate which inspired words are literal and which are figurative. It was not Jesus and his apostles who tried to explain away how things looked. It was their enemies, who thought they were serving the Lord as they offered ridiculous alternative explanations (He casts out demons by Beelzebub) and who demanded invincible proof when sufficient evidence was already available (Matt 16:1-4)


  4. Thanks for bringing this to light, Joel. Very enlightening. And disappointing!? The effort that some fellow believers expend in bending science to fit a worldview that they see as more Biblical, when the underlying principle isn’t even in the Bible (the whole idea of “inerrancy and infallibility of scripture”). One would think that this head-in-the-sand mentality would eventually dissipate as the science becomes more robust and Christian scholars show alternative and equally valid ways to interpret the words on the pages they’re reading. Unfortunately, though, I think current socio-political trends will make it worse. The problem is that this mentality is maintained in large part by home-schooling … non-expert and misinformed parents raising children to think and believe the same, who then raise children of their own in the same way, all equipped by these anti-science organizations who have created a whole industry. And home-schooling is not going away. In fact, I think it will increasingly become an option for parents trying to shelter their kids from the battles currently in play in society in general, and schools in particular, regarding gender, sexuality and race. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind indeed!


    1. Luke, well, I just realized that when I updated my blog format it switched to “moderation of comments” in which case your has been sitting in the queue that long. Totally agree with you assessment here.


Comments are closed.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: