Galapagos Creationists

Perhaps the most famous animal endemic to these islands, the Galapagos giant tortoise can live to be over 100 years old and weigh nearly 900 pounds. (Photo: Tony Azios)

Perhaps the most famous animal endemic to these islands, the Galapagos giant tortoise can live to be over 100 years old and weigh nearly 900 pounds. (Photo: Tony Azios)

By Tony Azios

Perhaps no place on earth is more closely linked to the theory of evolution than the Galapagos Islands. It was here, off the coast of South America, that Charles Darwin found evidence that new species can evolve through natural selection.

But these islands have undergone major social changes in the last twenty years, and a growing number of people who now call the Galapagos home do not believe in evolution.

“We base ourselves on the Bible,” says Esther Tacuri, a Seventh-day Adventist missionary. In front of the Adventist church on the Galapagos island of Santa Cruz, along bustling Charles Darwin Avenue, a large wooden sign reads: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

“We don’t believe at all that man came to be by sheer chance, or that man evolved from monkeys,” says Tacuri. “We really believe that God created man in the image and likeness of God.”

Another Adventist missionary, Lucrecia Cobos, says the vast majority of people who live here share this view.

“It is said that this is the center of evolution, but in my experience visiting with people in their homes, I never hear them talk about it,” she says. “On the contrary, the people here are much more accepting of the word of God.”

This point of view represents a big change for the Galapagos.

Jack Nelson moved to Santa Cruz Island from the United States in 1967, when only a few hundred people lived here. He says back then many of the residents came from North America and Europe, and many had some involvement with biological research.

“The local people were much more in contact with visiting scientists,” he says. “The people who live here now overwhelmingly have come from a very different kind of history.”


The Galapagos Islands belong to Ecuador, and roughly thirty thousand Ecuadoreans have moved here from the mainland in the past twenty years. They have come in search of jobs in fishing and tourism. Nelson says many of these newcomers haven’t had much science education.

At the Charles Darwin Research Station, where tourists and schoolchildren come to learn about the unique animals found on the islands, Park Service guides are hesitant to talk about evolution.

Víctor Carrión, a senior official with the Galapagos National Park, says that to stay on good terms with the community, the Park Service does not overtly promote Darwin’s theory. Instead, it focuses its message on conservation efforts, which “one hundred percent of the public supports,” he says.

But even if people say they support environmental protection, the growing population here has caused serious environmental damage.

Fishermen illegally harvest sea cucumbers and shark fins to sell to China. Locals import invasive plant species for their gardens, and those plants then spread into the wild where they threaten native varieties.

Jack Nelson – the American who moved here in 1967 – believes these environmental problems can be traced, in part, to the local population’s waning appreciation for the science of evolution.

“This is a national treasure,” he says, “and that it’s being managed rather carelessly in a lot of ways is not helped along by the fact that you have a really large population that doesn’t get it.”

But another longtime resident of the Galapagos sees it differently.

Marco Antonio Aguirre moved here with his family forty years ago to serve as a Jehovah’s Witnesses missionary. He now owns a bed and breakfast on Charles Darwin Avenue called La Peregrina (The Pilgrim).

Aguirre has also seen environmental destruction in recent years, but he argues that a belief in God’s creation may inspire people to help with conservation efforts.

“In my case, for example, it causes me to show much more respect for what we have,” he says. “And so I think that believing in a creator would be positive in that regard.”

While Aguirre does not believe in the theory of evolution, he does respect the scientist behind it. He says Darwin was a brave and insightful man who struggled to reconcile his ideas about life on earth with the Bible’s creation story.

Even those who disagree with Darwin are often grateful for what he did for the Galapagos, bringing world attention, tourists, and pride to the islands.

Discussion

21 comments for “Galapagos Creationists”

  • Amy McHenry

    Illegal harvesting of protected species & importation of invasive species have nothing to do with someone’s belief in creationism or evolution.  This implication seems to indicate more bias against creationists than careful examination of the facts.

    • Anonymous

      Many creationists believe that all other creatures, besides man, were put here on earth for the benefit of man, for his use.  Many of them feel that the fact that many species and environs are in decline, is in fact, what to expect, since we are only using what GOD put here for US. 
      There is a strong correlation between literal belief in the bible and destruction of (i.e. “use”) species and the environment.

      • Anonymous

        As the Genesis account points out man was entrusted with the care and cultivation of the earth and life in it, not the use/ benefit from it. A TRUE creationist would not hold the view that earths rescources are simply to benefit man at the expense of the environment. Thus Thnkabotit’s, “strong correlation between literal belief in the bible and destruction of (i.e. “use of”) species and the environment,” would actually apply only to hypocritical creationist.

  • Anonymous

    The comment “…more closely linked to the theory of evolution…” does your listeners a grave disservice.  Evolution is not a theory and hasn’t been for many decades.  There are numerous “theories of evolution”, which pertain to aspects of the fact of evolution, not to evolution itself being a theory.  This popular misconception in our language only serves to play into the hands of the religious fundamentalists who are so very happy believing that the world is flat and up is down.

    • Anonymous

      You can say that evolution is not a theory anymore but that doesn’t prove it.  Please provide your sources.  You can’t because you are full of it.

      • Anonymous

        Spend a little time with Google Scholar or a similar search engine looking at current findings in genetics related to evolution.  It is kind of staggering.  Researchers have clearly shown, for one example, that gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans all descended from a common ancestor that lived not too terribly long ago (a few million years), but that New World monkeys have a surprisingly different lineage.

        Check out Scientific American from December 2010.  There is an article about the discovery of what appears to be soft tissue preserved in dinosaur fossils (previously thought to be impossible).  It is entirely possible that someday fairly soon, we will have DNA sequences available that are tens or even hundreds of millions of years old to compare with more modern sequences.  Pretty mind blowing!

  • Ludlow B

    Are Seventh-Day Adventists anti-conservationists? This report
    seems to imply that we are. ADRA (the relief agency arm of the Seventh-Day
    Adventist church) actively promotes green practices globally. Take a look at
    the Eco-Friendly
    projects in Mongolia, Ethiopia, Bolivia
    and China
    as examples of our respect for the environment with which we are all blessed. http://www.adra.org

  • Ludlow B

    Are Seventh-Day Adventists anti-conservationists? This report
    seems to imply that we are. ADRA (the relief agency arm of the Seventh-Day
    Adventist church) actively promotes green practices globally. Take a look at
    the Eco-Friendly
    projects in Mongolia, Ethiopia, Bolivia
    and China
    as examples of our respect for the environment with which we are all blessed. http://www.adra.org

  • Anonymous

    I am glad that Joseph_Holmes made that point.  I will expand upon it a bit.  The correct reference to “Darwin’s Theory” is “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection”.  In this case, “of” is synonymous with “about” or “regarding”.

    Evolution has been accepted as fact by the vast majority of the scientific community for many decades.  Various theories as to the way(s) in which evolution occurs (Steady State, Punctuated Equilibrium, etc.) do compete for supremacy within that community.  Natural Selection is still the over-arching theory that these sub-theories attempt to elaborate.

    Modern genetics has utterly eliminated any question as to whether or not evolution occurs.  Only those who allow ideology to trump evidence, or who happen to be ignorant of the facts, still question the reality of evolution over time within biology.

    All the above being said, I do get the journalist’s point that folks on the Galapagos don’t believe in biological evolution, period.  It was an interesting and disturbing segment.

    • Anonymous

      Does mathematical evidence support evolution. More and more scientists are finding the complexities of even the simplest forms of life forming on their own to be mathematically impossible, not just improbable.

      Its a fact that scientists used to believe they had proof the world was flat. Evidence then was misunderstood, could evidence be misunderstood today? An individual who holds to bible teachings would really be allowing the creators ideology to trump mans ideology.

      • Anonymous

        You are exactly one hundred eighty degrees out of phase with current thought on evolution and complexity.  Complex structures arise from simple rules repeated many times.  There are many interesting and instructive videos available online showing work done with “virtual evolution” software that, when given simple instructions and a task (“move from here to there”, for example), yields fascinatingly complex behavior.  You might check out Wolfram’s work with cellular automata as well.  Interesting stuff.

      • Anonymous

        You are exactly one hundred eighty degrees out of phase with current thought on evolution and complexity.  Complex structures arise from simple rules repeated many times.  There are many interesting and instructive videos available online showing work done with “virtual evolution” software that, when given simple instructions and a task (“move from here to there”, for example), yields fascinatingly complex behavior.  You might check out Wolfram’s work with cellular automata as well.  Interesting stuff.

      • Ted Cheeseman

        Care to cite some valid reference for your claim? Mathematically impossible? How many possible combinations are there in a single event of conception? And can your brain wrap around 3 billion years? Yep, *very* mathematically possible, in fact basically impossible *not* to have evolution by natural selection once you have a means of heredity (DNA).

    • Anonymous

      Studies in the first and second laws of thermodynamics have indicated that these most basic of physical laws actually run counter to the necessary assumptions of evolutionary. That is, the first law (conservation of energy: ‘nothing is now being created or destroyed’) surely suggests that there was a time when creative forces were in operation that have long since ceased. The second law (entropy: there is a tendency in all closed systems for a certain amount of energy to pass into non-reversible heat energy, thereby causing the system – whether a tree, a star or a human body – to break down) suggests that the original creation was not at a time infinitely distant, because if it had been, everything would already have passed into a non-reversible heat death.
      In the realm of biology, a supplement for high school biology textbooks,  Of Pandas and People: the Central Question of Biological Origins states that:
      “The only known means of introducing genuinely new genetic material into the gene pool is by mutation, a change in the DNA structure…The fruit fly has been the subject of many experiments because its short life-span allows scientists to observe many generations. In addition, the flies have been bombarded with radiation to increase the rate of mutations… Mutations do not create new structures. They merely alter existing ones… they have not transformed the fruit fly into a new kind of insect. Experiments have simply produced variations within the fruit fly species.”
      Operational (as contrasted with evolutionary dogmatic or theoretical) science has in no sense confirmed the assumptions of evolution as to the ability of random mutation to produce (or evolve) new species. The French zoologist, P. P. Grasse, has studied mutations in generations of bacteria, which reproduce much more rapidly than fruit flies. One bacterial generation lasts approximately thirty minutes. Hence, they multiply 400,000 times faster than human generations. Researchers, therefore, can trace mutational change in bacteria equivalent to 3,500,000 years of change within the human species. But Grasse has found that these bacteria have not essentially changed during all these generations (Traite de Zoologie, vol. VIII, Masson, 1976).  If that be true, on what empirical basis can one assert that humans must have changed during an equivalent time frame? Is it not a matter of evolutionary assumption, rather than hard science?
      The fossil record is far from having proven evolutionary development. That is, ‘missing links’ are still missing, so that the gaps between ‘kinds’ or ‘species’ are still as wide as ever. David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics of University of Oklahoma, commented: “Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has provided some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them” (“Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory”, Evolution vol. 28, 1974, 467). It is the dogma, or unproven theory of evolution, not actual science, that runs contrary to the clear teachings of Genesis.

      • Anonymous

        It is telling that you must resort to forty-five year old textbooks to obtain even feeble support for your contention that evolution does not occur.  Not to mention the pseudo-science creationist classic “Of Pandas and People”.  I challenge you to expose yourself to current research published in peer-reviewed journals.

      • Ted Cheeseman

        Julius, you are hilarious. You could say the same thing to try to disprove the ability to clean a room or fold laundry. As long as there’s a larger external energy source, you can make order in a smaller realm. We do have a larger external energy source (the sun). The big arrow always goes toward entropy, but within that flow smaller arrows can flow toward more order. Yep, evolution happens, and a bunch of people saying otherwise, whether in the Galapagos or wherever, just means that a bunch of people are able to put a frame of values over the facts of DNA and the fossil record (not to mention the work, for example, of Peter and Rosemary Grant), and through this frame, using this lens of distortion, see whatever they choose to see.

  • Anonymous

    My experience contrasted with Mr. Azios‘s report. We were in fact told by guides at the Darwin Research Station that Darwin’s discovery of seven unique species of finches on various islands led to his concept of natural selection. And while Santa Cruz Island is populated, only three others have any human habitation and only one has a sizable population. The dozens of other islands remain pristine–the only way to get there is with a native national park trained guide. Park regulations limit the number of people and the guides control the movement of the visitors. Many of the islands have been cleared of invasive species from pre-national park days, including dogs, cars and goats as well as non-native plants. The place is better that it was 100 years ago. The Galapagos is a world treasure that, like everything else, is threatened by an increasing human population. But the park service has apparently achieved a satisfactory balance of preservation and limited visitation. We were impressed with how nature is being left to rule many of the islands. We felt as though we were guests of the seal lions, boobies, albatross and iguanas and saw no indication that Creationists were having any more impact on this fantastic place than anyone else. Maybe the Creationists are right–this is the closest I’ve been to the Garden of Eden.  

    • Anonymous

      Thanks for the contrasting report.  Let’s hope the Park Service continues to receive the funds and public support to carry on their good work.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XJ73ZOMOBLUFH55PXTK4V4ETCE Tom

    williamjreid has it right. It is sad that the islands are being populated by ignoramuses.

  • Anonymous

    Mutation is the generation of damaged genes resulting in devolution of an organism. A rampaging bull in a ‘china shop’ will not improve the original order of things. Thermodynamic, chemical, and radiation damage to a genome is that proverbial bull. Evolution is nonsense but also an ideology, it certainly is not science… If you can’t repeat it, or demonstrate it, it ain’t. Note also: genetic engineering or computer modeling is not natural selection. The Creator is; Yahweh is His Name.

  • Henrik Kibak

    Joseph Holmes has it right. The whole “Evolution Debate” is the result of inarticulate or sloppy communication by scientists and science writers. Does evolution take place through divine selection or natural selection? That is the question. As Holmes wrote, evolution is a fact. Darwin postulated that it happens by means of natural selection. Others can postulate that God’s hand is involved in every base change. That’s hard to disprove, but if you are going to teach it in a science classroom it has to be taught as something that could be false, just as we must when we teach natural selection. I put my money on natural selection, as Darwin did, but it is awfully hard for an Adventist or anyone who takes the Bible literally to even hear what you are saying if you dismiss them or make personal attacks.